The Socialist Workers Movement: A Trotskyist Analysis
A Class Struggle Special
| Date: | October 1992 |
|---|---|
| Organisation: | Irish Workers' Group [1976] |
| Publication: | Class Struggle |
| View: | View Document |
| Discuss: | Comments on this document |
| Subjects: | Socialist Workers' Movement |
Please note: The Irish Left Archive is provided as a non-commercial historical resource, open to all, and has reproduced this document as an accessible digital reference. Copyright remains with its original authors. If used on other sites, we would appreciate a link back and reference to The Irish Left Archive, in addition to the original creators. For re-publication, commercial, or other uses, please contact the original owners. If documents provided to The Irish Left Archive have been created for or added to other online archives, please inform us so sources can be credited.
Commentary From The Cedar Lounge Revolution
10th October 2011
This is a very readable addition to the Archive from the Irish Workers Group (which later became Workers Power - for more on the IWG see here ), and many thanks to Budapestkick who donated it and who has written the following overview of it.
The IWG has been examined elsewhere in the Irish Left Open History project , though it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has had contact with them. Someone who would have been active in Militant in the 80s and 90s described them as being, of the smaller Trotskyists groups who haunted the public meetings of Militant, SWP, WP etc. (the IBT and Socialist Democracy being our modern day equivalents), the best in terms of coherent arguments, generally good positions (except - in their view - on the national question) and consistency.
That they would produce a polemic like this is not surprising. The obvious tactic for a grouping as small as the IWG would be to target a larger organisation in order to win members and build a base of organisers through small numbers of recruits f, and the pamphlet mentions that they produced similar material to this directed at the WP, Militant and Labour. Of course, the fact that the IWG were a SWM split is obviously a factor, and important to bear in mind reading this.
The document includes a brief history on the origins of the far left in Ireland, which will be of interest to many here. Of particular interest is the suggestion that the Trench - Armstrong Trotskyist group were calling for a civil rights campaign in the north as early as 1944. If true, I think this predates Greaves by quite a bit.
The best section of the pamphlet by far is the dissection of the State capitalism theory and the often unusual positions it led the SWP to take, best summed up by the newspaper headline on p.46.
Elsewhere, the IWGers go into, often overwhelmingly intricate, criticisms of the SWP in relation to electoral calls, choice issues etc. The section on the SLP is quite interesting though. Is the claim that the SWM left with only 20 members an exaggeration or something close to the truth?
Comments
No Comments yet.
Add a Comment
Comments can be formatted in Markdown format . Use the toolbar to apply the correct syntax to your comment. The basic formats are:
**Bold text**
Bold text
_Italic text_
Italic text
[A link](http://www.example.com)
A link
You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution
By: Mark P Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:49:11
In reply to Joe.
No, that wouldn’t be either of those Tom Creans. Tom who founded the Spartacists in Ireland and then later was a prominent figure in the Socialist Party might well be known to a number of people here through the Labour History Society. He’s now back in America.
Michael:
Yes, I’m familiar with the Sparts nearly pathological hatred of ex-members who join other left wing groups. There have been a few former Sparts in the Irish Socialist Party over the years and they were similarly aggressive towards more than just Tom, although as their founder he held a special place in their hearts.
I mentioned the SWP having a pop at him for being an ex-Spart because that kind of personalised crap isn’t normally their style at all.
Reply on the CLR
By: Mark P Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:52:54
In reply to D_D.
I’ve never liked the slogan “people before profit”, mostly because I associated it with flakey liberals in the anti-globalisation movement. I was actually surprised to see in some old OSF election literature that they were using it long before.
Reply on the CLR
By: ejh Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:29:18
In reply to Mark P.
The SWP’s old documents and leaflets are a rich source of hostages to fortune.
But not just theirs, I think.
Reply on the CLR
By: Mark P Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:59:12
In reply to Mark P.
You are right.
Pretty much every political organisation gets predictions and perspectives amusingly wrong for instance, although that isn’t really what I was talking about above. And pretty much every organisation changes its mind about what it is arguing for from time to time, and that is what I’m talking about above.
But what makes the SWP unusual (not unique) is that it very rarely says that it has changed what it is arguing for, even less often explains why it has changed what it is arguing for and, in part because it doesn’t keep any record of what it used to say, it often gives the impression that it doesn’t actually know that it has changed what it is arguing for.
When it comes to electoral tactics in Ireland, the SWP has at various times called for a vote for just about every combination of Labour, the Officials, the Provisionals, Socialist Labour, the Communist Party, “left candidates” and “socialist candidates”. At other times it has not called for a vote for just about every combination of them. It used to oppose revolutionaries standing in elections. Then it used to say that revolutionaries only stand in elections to make revolutionary propaganda. Then it started looking for alliances with other forces while insisting on a socialist programme. Then it started looking for alliances with other forces while opposing having a socialist programme. And never once, to my knowledge, has it even mentioned its previous points of view, let along explained the change.
There’s flexibility and then there’s incoherence. There is no other force on the Irish left which has espoused or abandoned that sort of bewildering range of approaches to elections. Or even close to it. Different left groups are not simply interchangeable and do have their own peculiarities. A willful lack of interest in its own past is one of the Irish SWP’s.
Reply on the CLR
By: Mark P Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:28:31
In reply to Mark P.
Oh, and given the carefully assembled archives in the Socialist Party office, it would probably be fair to say that a slightly pedantic interest in the minutiae of our own past is one of ours.
Reply on the CLR
By: Michael Carley Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:09:15
@Mark P: Tom was accused of being in league with Loyalist death squads because of meetings we (the SP) organized with SF, PUP (I think), and our own speakers. That kind of thing goes beyond mere abuse.
Reply on the CLR
By: Left Archive: The British Left and The Irish War – Workers Power [UK], 1983 « The Cedar Lounge Revolution Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:54:41
[…] is an interesting document not least because it dovetails with the Irish Workers Group analysis of the Socialist Workers Movement which was posted up last year. And like that analysis it is highly critical of the SWP. Like many […]
Reply on the CLR