History
John Walters It is clear from Comrade Greenlark's comments in the last issue of Marxist Studies that he is not familiar with the history of the Brilish Trotskyist movement because he refers to the Socialist Labour League (SI.1.) as though this had had a continuous existence for over twenty years. The SI.J. was in fact launched dn 1959, and the group which he referred to as the one that the Cliff tendency broke from was only one of the component parts of the SLL. in 1959.
However, that is a minor aspect of the question. What IT am concerned about is to examine the proposition that the Cliff tendency came inlo existence because of the pressures of the cold war, and in particular its hot phase i.e. the Korean War. Unfortunately for those who like their history and polities handed out in neat simple packages, the truth was far more complicated and to understand it, it is necessary to go back a little further than 1950.
The situation after 1944 was that for the first time in the history of British Trotskyism there was one united organisation, i.e. the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). After the advent of the Labour Government to office in 1945 there arose a dispute within the organisation on the question of entry into the Labour Party. G. Healy was the leader of the minority faction in favour of entry, whilst the majority faction which opposed entry was led by J. Haston.
This particular dispute was waved fiercely for three years, but the minority still remained the minority. In 1947 the Executive of the Fourth International stepped in and decided that this dispute could only be settled in practice. lH decided to allow the minority to enter the Labour Party as a separate organisation under the direction of the International. This was done despite protests from the leadership of the RCP. De tacto this once more split the British Trotskyist movement, although in theory there was supposed io be still only one section, (Incidentally, if was in the same year that Cliff issued his
theses on Stalinist Russia, and hardly caused a ripple either in the majority or the minority faction because they were locked in combat over the Labour Party question. )
Therefore, from 1947 there were two official British sections of the Fourth International, the RCP and the Healy Group inside the Labour Party. This situation caused relations between the faclions, and between the RCP leadership and the International, to become even more embittered.
The Healy Group were instrumental in the publication of a monthly (later weekly) newspaper - Socialist Outlook - which gradually gathered support inside the Labour Party and Trade Unions, bul no Spectacular results were obtained in the first three years or so. At the same time the RCP gradually declined in numbers and influence, and the circulation of its publications declined considerably. The RCP leadership, which had pinned its hopes of a turn to the left of the rank and file of the Labour Party and an eventual split, gradually became disillusioned and began to capitulate intellectually to reformism. As they had previously exaggerated the prospects for revolution now they exaggerated the real changes brought about by reformism.
In 1949 the majority of the RCP leadership decided to recommend entry into the Labour Party, and even those who were against it decided not to fight on the issue. ‘Therefore when a Special congress of the party was held in 1949 the leadership won the day fairly easily, despile misgivings on the part of even their own supporters. At the same time it should be noted that the demoralisation amongst the leadership had been carefully screened from the membership even by those who were not capitulating to reformism.
When this had been accomplished, the RCP and the Healy Group fused, once more becoming a united organisation. But with this difference, the Healy faction demanded and were — given, a majority on the execulive bodies of the fused organisation. Shortly after this fusion took place Haston and others of the old leadership resigned from the organisation,
renouncing their Trotskyism. This was a tremendous blow to the morale of those they had led. Moreover, the regime of the unified organisation was a very authoritarian one, with many members being expelled for formal infractions of
discipline, or on trumped up charges.
There is another factor that has to be considered.
Trotskyism as an international and national political tendency had been forged in a bate against Stalinism. Therefore, much of the propaganda of the movement was directed to
criticising Stalinism. Having sprung from the world
communist movement Trotskyism was therefore very largely oriented towards it. The transition to entry work was for many members 2 very difficult change to make, because the mode of operation, priorities and milieu was radically different to that of an open party. The paoes of Socialist Appeal (the RCP's twice monthly newspaper) were shidded with Piling’ attacks upon Stalinism, but in conteast the entry paper Socialist Outlook made only the most passing and touted reference to this question,
It was with this background that the outbreak of the Korean War made its impact upon the organisation. This war was partially a civil war and partially an imperialist attack upon North Korea, In such circumstances it was the duty of revolutionary Marxists to support and detend the North Korean State bul at the same time it was necessary to distineuish between support for such a state under atirek oro tosperial ism and the particular regime of that state. the v.08 Korean State was a Stalinist police regime. witteh should hove been criticised, Trotsky always emphasized that whils' ones support for a workers’ state was unconditional, this moro way meant that one gave unconditional support to the restos ‘ the case of the Kurea the line pursued by the Healy beac top was completely uncritical of the Stalinists, This vine tie Socialist Outlook was indistinguishable from the Dribs Woe (how Morning Star) and to many people outside the ore
isation (and inside) i Seemed that a Stalimist pokiexs wn. bs pursued.
This was the tinal cause of the crisis inside pr ites
Trotskyism in 1950.) Ji was in this situation that ©: pyc epel from the obscurity that he had rested da simee L840 ete ceeded toareuce his case, ‘Phe louie of his case worn or? Simple, in essence he said “ii you continue to eat iis
workers’ states vou end up carrying oul Semi Sas
Stalinist policies and practices, ‘The evidence oe ps:
was very real, firstly there was the internal rewitice vce organisation which seemed designed to drive out alt thes oc opposed the leadership; secondly there was the con plete Tack of criticism of Stalinism in the public policies af the oraaes sation. Ina situation where many members tel) betrayed first by Haston and then by Healy, Clif for ong) fond tortibe ground for his ideas. If one were to examine Ubis Situation ry detail one would understand that for many people Cur was merely carrying on the traditions that they had Known, fut carried them to their ‘logical’ conclusion,
When the SLL today thunder about the iniquites of 'Pabloiusm! itis conveniently forgotten by them that it was Healy that first
introduced this dread virus into British Trotskyist body politic. Cliff was not the only person to break from the British section at this period. A smaller group of people who where not state-capitalists also broke, and they too argued that Healy was giving in to the pressures of Stalinism. But perhaps even more important is the fact that most of the people who actually joined the Cliff group at this period did not leave the Brilish section of their own accord, but were expelled because they opposed the leadership.
Therefore, to argue in such simplistic terms as that ‘the Cliff group was formed because of pressures from the general anti-communist feeling at the lime’ is to say the least inaccurate, The complex of pressures was much greater than allowed for. [Personally | think if fair to say that the person who did most to create the Cliff Group was - G. Healy.