End of the (party) line?
Article originally published in Issue 1 of Rupture, Ireland’s eco-socialist quarterly, buy a subscription:
by Cian Prendiville
Crises, splits and stagnation have marred revolutionary left organisations over the last years. Here, Cian Prendiville argues this is not just coincidental, but reflects that the ‘sect model’ of organising is not fit for the challenges facing us today.
When the 2008 crisis struck, the forces of the revolutionary left were small and scattered, but had reason to be optimistic. After 20 or more years in the political wilderness, living paper sale to paper sale, “everything had changed, changed utterly”. Capitalism was once again in crisis, working class people were being pushed into struggle and socialist ideas were being discussed in the mainstream. Now there would be opportunities to grow not just in ones-and-twos but to double, triple and quadruple in size.
However, over a decade on, this new dawn has failed to break. In recent years, instead of rapid growth, many groups both in the Trotskyist tradition and in the revolutionary socialist movement more broadly, have split, dwindled or even dissolved. If you look at those groups or ‘sects’ that were largest and most significant going into the crisis in the English speaking world, such as the American International Socialist Organization, the British Socialist Workers Party or the Committee for a Workers’ International, they have all suffered severe setbacks. Outside of the Anglophone world, the picture has been similar. The relatively large ‘Lambertist’ Fourth International and the Workers Party (PO) in Argentina both split down the middle recently.
We cannot simply write these off as a ‘series of unfortunate events’, unconnected scandals and debates without greater significance. Instead, it reflects an underlying failure of the methods and structures adopted, to varying degrees, by these groups, the so-called ‘sect model’. We must attempt to understand why they have failed, and draw a balance sheet, to help plot a course forward to building a revolutionary organisation that can succeed where so many have failed.
“What is a ‘sect’?”
The phrase ‘sect’ has often been used as merely an insult to be hurled at organisations you don’t like, losing a lot of its actual meaning.
Hal Draper, however, attempted to summarise traits that summarise the sect-model in an influential article “Anatomy of the Micro-Sect”, arguing that a sect “presents itself as the embodiment of the socialist movement, though it is a membership organization whose boundary is set more or less rigidly by the points in its political program”
In a similar vein, David McNally critiqued what he referred to as the ‘micro-party’ perspective of much of the revolutionary left, where small groups with very narrowly defined ideological foundations slip into viewing themselves as “the custodian of the authentic revolutionary tradition”. He argues the groups end up seeing the building of their own organisation as “the key to constructing a mass revolutionary party”.
Protecting the Olympic flame
The present revolutionary left bears the scars of two decades of retreat and isolation before the crash of 2008. In some countries this retreat began even earlier, but by the time of the defeat of the miners’ strike in Britain, the workers movement and the socialist left was in decline pretty much across the world. The collapse of the bureaucratic dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc spurred on an ideological offensive that ‘capitalism had won the battle of ideas’, and ‘There Is No Alternative’. The social democratic parties swung to the right, and what would become known as the ‘Blairites’ took over.
““The best of the revolutionary left managed to defend Marxist ideas throughout this period... but these survivors were shaped by this experience of isolation.””
With socialism seeming less and less relevant, the revolutionary left had to switch gears, and manage a retreat. Many organisations collapsed while others abandoned socialist ideas. The best of the revolutionary left managed to defend Marxist ideas throughout this period, and did develop new marxist activists while also playing important roles in various movements. But these survivors were shaped by this experience of isolation, perhaps more than they even realised at the time.
It strikes me, from my own experience and listening to the experiences of others, that such an extended period of relative obscurity brought out some of the worst in how revolutionary left groups organised. Constantly having to ‘protect the ideas’ above all else led to an ideological defensiveness, and hesitancy to engage with newer theories and debate. Perpetually ‘defending the party’ from both outside opponents, and internal critics led to a withering of whatever internal democracy existed, and a tendency to excuse the inexcusable.
A false dawn
I have strong memories of attending the 2009 conference of the Socialist Party, as a member of its National Committee. That post-crash conference discussed in particular the new opportunities for the party to grow. We adopted the internal slogan of ‘Towards 500 members’ - an aim to rapidly double in size. Ten years later, when I left, the membership was roughly the same as it had been in 2009, and the bold target for growth was largely forgotten.
This is not about castigating our naivety in 2009. We were not alone, and in fact it was completely correct for the left to aim to strike out, and grow rapidly as movements against austerity emerged. It’s also not about downplaying the significant gains made by the revolutionary left in that decade, the movements we helped to lead and the electoral victories that amplified the voice of workers in local councils and parliament. It’s simply about recognizing that reality was more messy than predicted. It’s beyond this article to discuss all these complications, other than to say that the reemergence of the working class movement has been and looks set to be more confused than we would have liked or expected.
All that is Brittle falls apart
Complexity is to be expected. “Theory is gray, but the tree of life is evergreen” as Lenin was fond of quoting. The problem was, revolutionary left groups which had battened down the hatches hadn’t developed the tools needed to deal with new challenges. What was needed was serious reflection, analysis and adjustment. That is only really possible through debating differences and a genuine dialogue with the wider working class. But the decades of ‘defending the party’ from dangerous new ideas meant the defensive instincts had become too strong, while the ability to have genuine comradely debate and reflection had atrophied.
In the case of the Committee for a Workers’ International, from which RISE emerged, almost immediately after debates broke out it fractured into four or more pieces. In the case of the British SWP and the ISO, it wasn’t debate but abusive behaviour by party leaders which rocked them. An approach that put defending the organisation first meant they covered up rather than actually dealt with these issues in a healthy manner, and ultimately collapsed, split or dissolved.
““In ‘protecting the flame’ from critique and correction, these organisations had actually starved it of the oxygen needed to really develop Marxists.””
It seems to me these organisations lacked the proper internal democratic culture needed to be able to weather these storms. We truly need to promote Trotsky’s idea of developing people to “in each case and on each question forges a firm opinion of his own and defends it courageously and independently”, but to really do that we need a tradition of debate, of seeing differences as an opportunity to discuss more and raise the understanding of everyone. The problem was that in ‘protecting the flame’ from critique and correction, these organisations had actually starved it of the oxygen needed to really develop Marxists.
Taking off the training wheels
The ‘death agony of sects’, however, does not inevitably lead us to a new and improved situation. While it is liberating to realise there is no catechism of Marxism which has all the answers and simply needs to be defended, it is also daunting. While a sect’s strict limits of what you may and may not reasonably question does not develop the critical thinkers we need, it does provide a certain counter to the pressures towards opportunism, accommodation with capitalism and just following the prevailing ‘common sense’ on the left.
Countless groups have split from various sects, only to either become a mini-me, embodying all the problems of their parent organisation, or to end up dissolving. Too often people, rejecting the failed methods of their prior organisations, have also ‘thrown the baby out with the bathwater’, so to speak, and given up on revolutionary ideas either completely or at least in practice.
However, it’s a lot more difficult than it sounds to separate this particular baby from its bathwater. How can we continue to organise as revolutionary socialists, spread these ideas, develop more Marxist thinkers and activists, but avoid the errors of the past? What kind of organisation, and methods, can we use to ensure we build genuine democratic socialist organisations able to boldly and quickly intervene into mass movements? This is the discussion and debate we need to start having on the left.
In removing the training wheels of the sect mentality, we open up new challenges and heighten the risk of crashing. But we also raise the possibility of building a revolutionary left capable of achieving the real speed and strength that we need to navigate this complex terrain.