The Rise of Militant
By
Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party General Secretary
Preface
THE
IDEA for this book arose when Militant was discussing how best to
celebrate its 30th anniversary in October 1994.
One
suggestion, successfully carried out in October and November of
that year, was for a national speaking tour by myself, together
with Tommy Sheridan and others.
A
series of very successful meetings was held in all the main areas
of Britain. At the same time it was suggested that I should gather
together the main articles from Militant’s 30year history, for
publication in a small book.
However,
once I began to investigate the viability of such a project it
became clear that the publication of a few
"representative" articles would not do justice to the
subject.
Thus
the idea of a book celebrating our 30 years of publication took
shape.
However,
the very scope of such an undertaking - compressing the events of
30 years into one volume - proved to be a much more formidable
task than I anticipated.
This
book could not be produced at "leisure". As general
secretary of Militant Labour, I am in a position which demands
intense day-to-day involvement in the activities of this
organisation.
Therefore
the writing of this book had to be "fitted in" alongside
the more pressing daily tasks of building Militant Labour and
participating in the struggle. This is the main reason for the
delay in publishing.
Another
reason for delay was the difficulty in editing and selecting for
publication those extracts from Militant’s history which best
reflect its political position at each stage in its development,
as well as the continuity of thought and approach which determined
its political approach.
This
book is not primarily an "organisational" account of
Militant’s evolution. Some organisational details are included
but these are kept to a minimum. This is because the aim of this
book is essentially to trace out the ideas which motivated
Militant and its adherents first to undertake publication of the
newspaper and then to sustain it, in good times and bad, over a
30-year period.
Right
from its inception, Militant has been scrupulously democratic,
both in its organisation and in its approach towards its political
opponents in the labour movement. Decisions, including the one
which led to the publication of Militant, were determined
democratically by committed supporters. Those who paid money
regularly to Militant and were involved in our local discussion
groups determined its policy.
Leading
"Militants" did not have a vast apparatus or mighty
resources compelling obedience to its political line. Decisions
were arrived at through discussion and debate. At the outset there
were a number of leading supporters, based in London, who
constituted the National Editorial Board (NEB), who held positions
of authority and respect within Militant’s ranks. They were
elected and subject to recall at any time.
At
the time when Militant was launched and for a period afterwards
these leading members were Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe, Keith
Dickinson, Clare Doyle (who joined a little later), Ellis Hillman
(who subsequently parted company from Militant) and Arthur Deane.
Small
forces were involved at the beginning. But decisions were only
arrived at after intense discussion and debate. Indeed, the
intensity of the debate in the Marxist movement sometimes is in
inverse proportion to the number of participants! The most
controversial aspect at the beginning was over the name.
The
choice of Militant was not initially favoured by many. But the
market place for "revolutionary names" is very crowded,
which makes the choice of a name for a new publication very
difficult indeed. However, the name Militant had an honourable
pedigree in the history of the Trotskyist movement. It had been
the name of an earlier, very small, Trotskyist group, in Britain.
It was also the name of the newspaper of the American Socialist
Workers Party, which worked closely with Trotsky in the 1930s.
However,
by the early 1960s the leadership of the US SWP was at variance
with the leaders of what became Militant in Britain. For this
reason, if no other, most of the pioneers of Militant were not
enthralled by the choice of this name. It was accepted at the
time, largely because no other viable alternative was on hand.
But
in the psychology of human beings, names, both of individuals and
organisations, become associated in the mind with what they come
to represent. And in one important respect the name Militant did
stand for what its proponents intended: the aim of winning in the
first instance, the most conscious, combative, fighting, i.e.
militant, sections of the working class.
An
incident outside a factory illustrated what Militant was all
about. A supporter sold the paper outside this factory to a
regular group of workers. Over a three-week period he observed
that another individual from the factory stood watching, noting
those who bought the paper. Fearing that this was a
management "nark" or supervisor, the seller approached
this individual. Rather than being a management stooge he stated
that he was in fact the chief shop steward, i.e. the convenor of
the workers in the factory. He was observing those who bought the
Militant, because he wanted to identify those workers capable of
becoming shop stewards! Those who were prepared to stand out, who
in turn were those who were prepared to buy Militant, were
leadership material in the eyes of this convenor.
Like
the convenor of this factory, but from a broader point of view,
Militant set its sights in the first instance on the more
conscious, politically aware sections of the working class. The
winning of these layers, who we consider are "the salt of the
earth", is the key to winning the mass of the working class
at a later stage.
Militant,
through deeds as well as words, became, in time, a substantial
force within the British labour movement. In the beginning,
however, small forces were ranged behind Militant’s banner. But
the history of the Trotskyist movement in Britain did not begin
with Militant. There is a long tradition going right back to the
1930s and Trotsky himself, of Trotskyist groups and organisations
which endeavoured to find a base within the labour movement and
the working class.
Some
of those who helped to form Militant, such as Ted Grant and
the Deanes (Jlmmy, Gertie, Brian and Arthur), had been involved in
the Trotskyist movement for decades. The author does not subscribe
to the view that the struggles of small groupings are of no
historical significance. As Trotsky pointed out, the theoretical
battles which were fought out amongst small groups of Russian
revolutionaries in exile, in the back alleys of Paris, the pubs in
London or flea-infested barns in Brussels were part of a necessary
process, sharpening the political weapons without which the
greatest social overturn in history, the Russian revolution, would
not have been possible. Without the struggles of past generations
of Marxists, particularly the pioneers of Trotskyism in Britain,
the success of Militant would not have been possible.
The
youthful adherents who joined the ranks of what became Militant in
the early 1960s, stood on the shoulders of those who maintained
the Trotskyist tradition in the most difficult period. However, it
is not the intention, nor is it possible within the scope of this
work, to deal with this history. Others will have to fulfil that
task.
The
purpose of this work is to show how Militant was able to move from
"just another" small group into a force able to weld the
ideas of Marxism to mass movements of workers. Militant, it is
true, did not arise fully formed. A preparatory period of
assembling new cadres, particularly in the early 1960s, had been
undertaken before the launch of Militant was possible. Merseyside
was an area where Trotskyism, in the form of those who
subsequently supported the formation of Militant, had put down
firmer roots than elsewhere in the labour movement and the working
class.
Within
the Labour Party the Walton constituency was the only one in which
the Marxists were able to achieve any appreciable success. Year
after year they argued the case for the general programme of
socialism, both at the level of the Liverpool Trades Council and
Labour Party, which was then a joint body, and at national Labour
Party conference. Walton Labour Party remained a stronghold for
the forces of Marxism in the late 1950s.
In
1959 George McCartney, a supporter of Socialist Fight (the
forerunner of Militant), was selected as Labour's prospective
parliamentary candidate for Walton. In this battle he easily
defeated Woodrow Wyatt, then a supporter of Tribune but now a
rabid right-winger. Unfortunately the 1959 general election,
against all expectations, was a victory for the Tories. Despite a
tremendous campaign, Labour failed to win Walton.
Among
those who joined Walton Labour Party in 1957, thereby coming into
contact with the ideas of Marxism, was Keith Dickinson, one of the
five Militant Editorial Board members expelled from the Labour
Party in 1983. Many others played an important role in the
development of the forces of Socialist Fight. Pat Wall, who had
been secretary of Garston CLP at the age of 16 back in 1952,
played an important role, as did Don Hughes, Pauline Knight (who
subsequently married Pat Wall) and a group of printers including
Reg Lewis and John MacDonald.
I
came into contact with Socialist Fight in 1960 initially after
meeting Don Hughes. Before then, support for CND was combined with
a keen interest in the basic ideas of socialism and what I
imagined was "communism". After attending a Labour Party
public meeting I was contacted by John MacDonald from Socialist
Fight.
At
that time a ferocious battle was taking place within the Labour
Party Young Socialists on Merseyside between the adherents of
Socialist Fight and those who subscribed to the ideas of the
Socialist Labour League (who subsequently became the Workers'
Revolutionary Party). I was invited to meetings of the Socialist
Labour League, and had discussions with their Merseyside organiser.
Why
was I attracted to the much smaller Socialist Fight? With very
little experience in the labour movement I was nevertheless
repelled by the narrow political sectarianism - not to say
authoritarianism - of the SLL. We record later how the supporters
of Socialist Fight won a majority within the Young Socialists.
However,
with the decision to publish Militant, it was also decided that I
be moved from Merseyside to London to become the paper's full-time
Editor. I was promised a £10 weekly wage and secure
accommodation. However, the accommodation and the £10 wages
remained on the plane of "theory", never actually
materialising for years. In the well-worn tradition of Marxists
and revolutionaries, I was compelled first of all to sleep on the
floor of a supporter in Balham, south London.
But
when a small factional dispute took place, I found myself locked
out of this room, sometimes forced to sleep on other people's
floors and once or twice spending sleepless nights in the
entrances of subways, before finally a decision was taken that I
should sleep "illegally" in an office which Militant had
rented from the Independent Labour Party (ILP). I was compelled to
do this for six months in what became an almost cat-and-mouse
existence with the caretaker of the building.
Not
entirely enamoured of Trotskyists, this individual arrived at the
ILP headquarters very early every morning to run the ILP bookshop
which was located in the basement. This character spent a large
part of his time, between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., trying to catch me
sneaking from the first floor office out of the door to take a
wash in the public toilets just over the road. Fortunately, the
agility of youth had an advantage over older legs and the cat
never actually caught the mouse! This precarious existence, both
financial and personal, would not have been possible without the
help of committed supporters of Militant.
Militant
International Review (MIR) from 1969 onwards was our main
theoretical journal. It was first produced intermittently. In time
it became a quarterly, then a bimonthly. In 1995 the MIR was
replaced by a new monthly journal Socialism Today, edited by Lynn
Walsh.
The
articles in these journals contain some of the most detailed and
penetrating insights into British and world developments over the
last two or three decades.
From
1985 Clive Heemskirk, who gained invaluable experience as Militant
student organiser from l981-85, played an indispensable role
alongside different editors in the production of our theoretical
journal including our new monthly.
There
are many very good comrades who over 30 years have made a big
contribution to the building of Militant and who I have not been
able to mention in this work. My sincere apologies to them; due
weight will be given to all of them when a more detailed
organisational as well as political history will be written about
Militant in the future. But I hope they will forgive me for
mentioning the contribution of Linda Taaffe. She joined me in
London in 1966. Since then, both on a personal level, and
politically, she has been steadfast in the cause of socialism and
Marxism. To all who know her, and particularly to the author,
obviously, she has always been a source of encouragement and love,
always demonstrating supreme confidence in the goals which we are
struggling for.
The
fainthearts and sceptics can ask, "how nearer is the
realisation of this goal, socialism, which Militant set out to
achieve?" Look around at your world consumed by racial
hatred, ethnic division, war, poverty and unemployment. The best
answer to this was given by Leon Trotsky at the dawn of this
century. In a dialogue between a pessimist and an optimist he
wrote:
And
now that century has come! What has it brought with it at the
outset?
In
France - the poisonous foam of racial hatred; in Austria -
nationalist strife... in South Africa - the agony of a tiny
people, which is being murdered by a colossus; on the
"free" island itself - triumphant hymns to the
victorious greed of Jingoist Jobbers; dramatic
"complications" in the east; rebellions of starving
popular masses in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania... Hatred and murder,
famine and blood...
It
seems as if the new century, this gigantic newcomer, were bent
at the very moment of its appearance to drive the
optimist into absolute pessimism and civic nirvana.
-
Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope!
thunders the twentieth century in salvos of fire and in the
rumbling of guns.
-
Surrender, you pathetic dreamer. Here I am, your long awaited
twentieth century, your 'future".
-
No, replies the unhumbled optimist: You - you are only the present.'
Rotting
capitalism is incapable of showing a way forward either for the
British or the world working class. Nor can the right-wing Labour
leaders show a way out of the impasse.
World
socialism is the only way of preventing social and political, as
well as environmental disaster, on a monumental scale.
Consciousness of what needs to be done lags far behind what
Marxists call the "objective conditions" of capitalism
in Britain and on a world scale. This contradiction, however,
cannot last forever. Consciousness will catch up with these
objective conditions. When that happens there will be huge leaps
in understanding, particularly by the working class. In the course
of such movements the ideas of Militant, which have already given
a glimpse of what is possible for the British working class, will
become the political weapons through which the labour movement and
the working class will carve out a new world.
Peter
Taaffe, October 1995.
[Top]
[Socialist Party] [The
Socialist newspaper]
The
Socialist Party, PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD
Tel
020 8988 8777
email:
contact@socialistparty.org.uk
v2
|
