[Marxism] Paddy Healy on the ULA debacle

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Sat May 4 07:27:17 MDT 2013


From: Paddy Healy [paddy.healy at eircom.net]
Sent: 02 May 2013 16:43
To: paddy.healy at eircom.net
Subject: After Ultraleft Destruction-The Way Forward

 From Paddy Healy 086-4183732

My Political Position-----Paddy Healy

The position I outline here is my own position only. It is based on my 
experience as a left-wing activist at national and international level 
over 50 years. It is my personal response to current disunity on the left.

There is a broad spectrum of political analyses in Workers and 
Unemployed Action. We are united on the basis of our constitution and 
rules, nothing more, nothing less.

http://wuag.wordpress.com/constitution-and-rules/

Ultra-Left Destruction

Competitive recruitment between the Socialist Party and the Socialist 
Workers Party has destroyed the ULA and is now narrowing the Campaign 
against Household and Water Taxes to such an extent as to make it 
ineffective. The number of people attending meetings, rallies and 
marches of CAHWT is dwindling as the two “Marxist” groups advocate 
policies which are impossible for ordinary people and their dependents 
to follow. Despite the destruction of the campaign, the two groups will 
feel justified if they get some recruits out of it and ,if above all, 
they get more recruits than each other!

Competitive ultra-leftism is now becoming a huge destructive feature on 
the left and a large obstacle to politically reorganising masses of 
ordinary people on a principled political basis and a serious obstacle 
to organising effective campaigns against austerity. I believe that I 
have an obligation to explain to left-wing political activists why these 
things are occurring and how these obstacles may be overcome and to 
generate a discussion on the way forward.

The Roots of The Problem

I touched on the roots of the problem in a footnote to my original 
document (I have appended it below). Trotsky founded the Fourth 
International in 1938. The defining class battles in the past 70 years 
occurred during the second world war and its aftermath and during the 
fall of Stalinism in Eastern Europe. Political currents are not 
revolutionary just because they say they are or because they use Marxist 
terminology or even because they have developed a comprehensive 
political programme. Indeed all currents have many committed and able 
members. It can only be concluded that they are revolutionary if they 
pass the test of history and continue to contribute to the achievement 
of workers liberation.

Before his assassination, after the war had broken out, Trotsky wrote a 
document entitled the “Fourth International and War”. While it was 
correct to designate the war as inter-imperialist and accordingly the 
revolutionaries were required to oppose the war-mongering of their own 
capitalists, nevertheless the revolutionaries should be in the trenches 
with the workers and should not personally evade conscription.. Normal 
agitation would be inadequate in war time and the Trotskyists should be 
prepared for armed action in appropriate circumstances. This advice was 
disregarded by the Trotskyists, notably in the UK and France. Leaders 
spent the war safe from conscription in Ireland and the Isle of Man. 
Even after the Nazis had taken over in France and set up a puppet French 
government the French Trotskyists did not change their abstentionist 
position. Nazis were rounding up Jews, trade unionists, Gays and 
transporting them to labour camps and extermination camps. There was 
virtually no Trotskyist participation in “La Résistance” in the face of 
this barbarism.

There was a major revolutionary heave of the working class throughout 
Europe as the Nazi regime and its puppets crumbled. Because of huge 
errors the Trotskyists were totally marginalised in this surge. They had 
not been in the trenches with the workers and they had not participated 
in the armed struggle against the Nazis in France and the Balkans. The 
Fourth International broke up into competing sects largely confined to 
the intelligentsia.

The working class surge in the UK resulted in the “war hero” Churchill 
being ousted by the Attlee led Labour Party. The Trotskyists were 
completely marginalised and confined to intellectual circles because 
they had not been in the trenches with the workers who were now surging 
forward. Crucially the entire left of the trade union movement fell into 
the hands of the Communist Party who had been in the 
trenches,particularly after the collapse of the Stalin-Hitler Pact. 
(This happened in Belfast also where the CP became dominant due to 
absence of the British or Irish Labour Parties)

The international surge led to a major revival of Labour in 26-county 
Ireland and the development of Clann Na Poblachta .

Interest in Trotskyism did not substantially revive on the left until 
the Hungarian events of 1956.

During the late fifties and sixties each Trotskyist sect either 
developed or hardened their view that they were the sole inheritor of 
the revolutionary heritage of Trotsky. Each saw itself as the one true 
church outside of which there was no socialist salvation!

Almost all Trotskyist currents expanded membership in the late sixties 
and seventies in the context of student revolts , opposition to the 
Vietnam war and the suppression of the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.

A successful revolution against Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe is a 
key plank of the Trotskyist programme of world revolution. This took a 
huge turn in 1980 when the Polish regime was forced to allow the free 
trade union Solidarnosc to organise following a workers revolt. What 
followed is history including the fall of Stalinism in the Soviet Union 
and Eastern Germany. Crucially, the outcome was not a victory for 
workers power but for international capitalism.

This was a huge setback for the international working class. (SWP UK saw 
it as a replacement of one form of capitalism by another). The victory 
of the right in eastern Europe politically strengthened capitalism world 
wide and gave rise to new attacks on workers all over the world and the 
reinforcement of Thatcherism/Reaganism and neo-liberalism (extreme 
capitalism generally).

Were the Trotskyist currents able to give strong support to the workers 
revolt in eastern Europe and make serious efforts to lead it along the 
path of workers democracy? We all did some things. For example, the 
League for a Workers Republic of which I was a leading member sent 
computers and printers to the Polish shipyards and transported them to 
there in person. Solidarnosc reps spoke in Ireland and were received by 
Clonmel Trades Council and Clonmel Corporation. Doubtlessly other 
currents did similar things.

But the reality was that the Trotskyist currents were largely 
irrelevant. Apart from a handful of émigrés in Paris there were no 
Trotskyists in Eastern Europe. Above all, not alone was there no 
Trotskyist leadership of a single large western trade union but the 
Trotskyists were not serious contenders for leadership in a single 
one-and it was forty two years since the founding of the Fourth 
International.

Solidarnosc was driven to the right by Western Trade union leaders, 
above all by the leadership of the American AFL/CIO and the American 
Federation of Teachers. (when I was sent as President of the Teachers 
Union of Ireland as fraternal delegate to AFTCongressin 2005, I refused 
to take part in a “Celebration of 25 years of Solidarnosc” at a fringe 
event) European Social Democracy also played a significant role.

Seeing that the revolution in Eastern Europe was a huge crucial and even 
defining part of the Trotskyist Programme one might have expected that 
all the currents would come together, pool their resources, and give 
maximum support to the progressive elements in the developing revolt. 
Nothing of that kind of any significance occurred. Their main 
preoccupation was to use East European activists to help themselves 
recruit in the west. (There was a row between SWP UK and PCI(France) 
when Lambert (PCI Leader)“poached”  Edmund Baluka (Szechin Shipyard) 
from Cliff (SWP Leader))

The failure of the Trotskyist currents to organise clandestine work in 
Eastern Europe over 30 years since the second world war was inexcusable. 
It meant that they did not take the Trotskyist programme seriously and 
it raises serious questions about their internationalism.

The weak position in Western trade unions was a product of the second 
world war debacle. This was compounded by failure to admit and attempt 
to rectify the error and the resulting prioritisation of 
conflict/competitive recruitment with other Trotskyist currents.

THE WAY FORWARD

This is not a matter of apportioning blame to individuals or to 
particular currents.

The reality is that all of them failed historic tests which had huge 
negative outcomes for the international working class. The first failure 
facilitated the decapitation of the post-world war revolutionary process 
by the Communist Parties, particularly in France and Italy. The second 
failure in Easten Europe facilitated the strengthening of world-wide 
capitalism against the working class.

This means that none of the currents have any revolutionary authority 
and continue to be seriously disfunctional. It means that none of the 
currents are “the one true church” . They cannot admit this or address 
their own history because they believe they “are the one true church” 
and failure to make the “the one true church” dominant through 
individual recruitment will be the death of the revolution according to 
each of them. They are in a vicious circle from which they cannot 
escape. The belief that the dominance of your own current is a 
prerequisite for a successful revolution can justify all manner of 
behaviour. For example, if your rivals are dominating the ULA, it is 
your duty to sharply factionalise against this even if this disrupts the 
regroupment generally. Hence the SWP internal bulletin of Feb 2,2012 
quoted in my earlier document. Hence the failure of the SP to call for 
the resignation of Mick Wallace because it would reduce ther domination 
of the ULA by alienating Clare Daly TD.

The deadly rivalry between Trotskyist currents has particularly negative 
consequences in the current world situation of capitalist crisis. 
Because of the demise of the Communist Parties the Trotskyists are no 
longer a left opposition to Stalinism in the workers movement.  The 
social democrats have been severely weakened in many countries including 
Ireland. This means that genuine principled socialists have to take 
responsibility for the fate of the working class as a whole and 
therefore for the rapid political regroupment of whole layers of 
workers. This must take priority over individual recruitment to 
individual groups. Until political currents accept this they are an 
obstacle rather than a help.

In the absence of a recognised and proven revolutionary international 
leadership, we must do all we can where we can. We must all be committed 
to political reorganisation at national level and to co-operate with 
like-minded people who give priority to this project. On the other hand, 
we must seek out all opportunities to create a revolutionary 
international. It is important to remember that all new internationals 
involved a coming together of political formations which had already 
existed from a number of countries.

There are many groupings and individuals throughout the world which 
share some of this analysis.



Socialist Party Withdraws from ULA—my earlier doccument   19/01/2013 


Rivalry between Socialist Party (SP) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) 
Ends ULA Project.

Towards a New Way Forward

The Socialist Party has effectively withdrawn from the ULA. It has also 
vetoed the registration of the ULA as a political party. (It has 
formally withdrawn since-PH)

Prior to the withdrawal of WUAG from the ULA, I predicted that the 
rivalry between the SP and the SWP , which had already seriously damaged 
the ULA, would intensify and would kill off the organisation as a 
credible left alternative. WUAG had already concluded that the 
activities of the SP and the SWP had made impossible the task of 
politically reorganising workers in a mass way through the ULA. As such 
reorganisation is the core objective of WUAG, that organisation 
withdrew. It will now seek to carry out this mission on a national basis 
in alliance with like-minded individuals.

The effective break-up of the ULA is a set-back for the left which must 
be overcome as quickly as possible. This document is a contribution to 
the necessary discussion. As similar problems are occurring in other 
countries, it is to be hoped that this document will make a positive 
contribution to a more general international discussion.

After a brief ceasefire between the two groups after the withdrawal of 
WUAG, the contention between the SP and the SWP has now reached maximum 
intensity. Unfortunately the contention has now reached new heights also 
in the Campaign against Household and Water Charges. This can be seen 
from the SP statement on its website in which its effective withdrawal 
from the ULA was announced and from the proceedings of the recent rally 
(Jan 12, 2013) of The Campaign against Household and Water Charges1.

In the course of the statement dated Dec 14, 2012 the Socialist Party said:

“The Socialist Party has major problems with the political positions and 
approaches being adopted in the ULA at present. We have communicated to 
the Steering Committee that we don't see any real or productive basis to 
pursue our serious concerns in the ULA at this point, particularly given 
the positions argued and adopted by the different elements at the last 
Council meeting. ------

For the Socialist Party, the battle against the household and property 
taxes is a priority, and it will take more of our focus and work and as 
mentioned, in that context we will be diminishing our participation in 
the ULA.

However, in doing this we are not in any way stepping away from the 
struggle to help to build a new working class party on a principled 
basis. That is precisely what can happen in an organic way, by fighting 
on these issues which can potentially bring thousands of ordinary 
working class people into activity, which is essential if a new mass 
working class party is to be built.”

The Socialist Party has also informed the ULA that it will not be 
attending meetings of the ULA leadership body known as the Steering 
Committee. The Socialist Party has veto powers on that Committee. 
Presumably, it has decided that decisions taken by that body are of no 
further concern to the SP or alternatively that the residual Steering 
committee will be unable to take any decision in its absence!!

Given the level of betrayal carried out by the Labour Party in the 
Budget, the building of a mass left alternative is more urgent than 
ever. In its statement the Socialist Party says that it is not “stepping 
away” from this objective. But, clearly, it does not see the ULA playing 
a role in this. Clearly the formulation “diminishing its participation” 
is merely a cover for abandoning the ULA which effectively now no longer 
exists in its original form.

The SP believes that the building of a mass left alternative will occur 
“in an organic way” through the Campaign Against Household and Water 
Charges. That is the meaning of the sentence in their statement: “That 
is precisely what can happen in an organic way, by fighting on these 
issues which can potentially bring thousands of ordinary working class 
people into activity, which is essential if a new mass working class 
party is to be built.”

The CAHWT is their replacement for the ULA as a field for recruitment 
and agitation.

As the government has made a non-payment campaign against home tax 
impossible through deductions from pay, benefits and grants and trade 
union leaders are blocking industrial action, the SP (and the SWP) is 
driven to proposing unofficial industrial action in a situation where 
all the evidence is that this is impossible at this time1. There is a 
danger that the disfunctionality associated with the SP/SWP rivalry 
could drive the CAHWT and with it the entire left along a suicidal path.

This turn by the SP is a huge error. Political reorganisation of workers 
is now not only necessary but the ground for it is uniquely favourable. 
This is clearly shown in recent opinion polls. “The essential rejection 
by 44 per cent of the electorate of all current possible political 
permutations is also indicative of a strong level of latent support for 
a new political party.” (Sunday Independent January 13).

As trade union leaders make it impossible for workers to organise to 
defeat their enemies by industrial action/demonstrations etc, entire 
sections of workers are driven towards political reorganisation. That is 
the fertile ground which now exists and it is being abandoned in 
practice by the SP and the SWP in favour of individual recruitment to 
their own organisations.

The three founding groups of the ULA were WUAG, SP and People Before 
Profit Alliance which includes the SWP. The decision of the SWP, in Feb 
2012, to prioritise recruitment to the SWP rather than to the ULA or 
even to People before Profit has effectively split People before Profit. 
Joan Collins TD did not attend its most recent national conference and 
Eddie Conlon, a member of its leadership, resigned from the organisation 
in advance of the conference. The SWP position was set out in a leaked 
internal bulletin3 dated Feb 2, 2012.

The same internal bulletin ( issued before the Mick Wallace matter arose 
and before the resignation of Clare Daly TD from the SP) announced that 
the ULA had already collapsed.

Clearly the SWP had abandoned the strategy of building a mass left 
alternative through the ULA (if it were ever genuinely committed to the 
project) several months before the SP came to the same conclusion.

Why? Why? Why?

At a time when working people are facing the most intense attacks on 
their living standards for over 60 years, most genuine left political 
activists, trade union and community activists and people of good intent 
will be scandalised by the divisions and the attendant acrimony on the 
left. It is scarcely believable that at a time of greatest opportunity 
and greatest obligation to working people that the SP and the SWP would 
prioritise domination over each other rather than the building of a mass 
left alternative.

I believe that I have a duty to explain the roots of this debacle in an 
attempt to ensure that it does not recur. The work of building a mass 
left alternative on a principled basis must continue urgently without 
the SP and the SWP unless and until these organisations demonstrate in 
practice that they give priority to politically reorganising whole 
sections of workers over recruitment to their own organisations.

The SP and the SWP are part of separate international political currents 
each headquartered in London. Because the two organisations are biggest 
in the UK, the rivalry is particularly intense there though it exists in 
several countries. The two international currents are two of the many 
fragments of the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky which 
broke up during and following the second world war. The founders of 
these currents had made disastrous political errors2 in the war years 
which isolated them from the workers movement particularly in France and 
the UK. (I can discuss this further with those interested)

For many years, I have held the view that the main objective of these 
organisations is to become bigger and more influential than each other. 
Despite their protestations, all other objectives take second place. 
Prioritisation of individual recruitment to competing political sects 
makes objective analysis of the political conjuncture or realistic 
assessment of the mood and orientation of workers impossible. Above all, 
each must be more “revolutionary” than the other. This leads to totally 
wrong decisions at best and, at worst suicidal policies for the genuine 
left. It makes entirely impossible the incorporation into the genuine 
left of layers of the workers springing into new political life. This is 
not just an Irish phenomenon but an international phenomenon.

Let us look at developments in the ULA in 2012 and attempt to understand 
them from the above point of view.

Before the Wallace admission on tax evasion, the SWP had decided that 
the ULA had collapsed and priority should be given by their members to 
recruiting to SWP rather than to ULA. (See extract from leaked SWP 
Internal bulletin pasted below)3. SWP members were to publicly criticise 
their allies. Up to that period the ULA had been relatively successful 
having elected five TDs and having held a successful conference. It was 
clear that the ULA hadn’t collapsed. Why then did SWP make this “turn”? 
Because the SP with two TDs had come to publicly dominate the ULA with 
Joe Higgins taking leaders questions, this was perceived by SWP as 
giving SP a major advantage for growth and recruitment with SWP playing 
second fiddle. Given the long history of in-fighting in the UK, this did 
not look good from SWP HQ in London! Irish leaders of the SP could be 
much more effective in assisting their parties in other countries 
including the UK, to recruit members based on their “success” in the 
ULA. In order to set up the ULA, it had been agreed by the SWP that 
decisions would be taken by consensus as befitted an Alliance. But now 
the SWP launched an aggressive campaign to outgrow the SP. Consensus 
decision making, they said, must be replaced immediately with one person 
one vote! This opportunist policy took no account of the fact that the 
ULA was an alliance of three separate political parties. According to 
SWP, there could be no waiting until serious political differences4 had 
been resolved in fraternal internal discussion before a single united 
party could be formed based on “one person-one vote”. SWP was fully 
aware that any such decision would break up the Alliance. This cynical 
policy was designed to appeal to the many new inexperienced people who 
had joined the ULA and hopefully strengthen the SWP in its rivalry with 
the SP. Given the history of the SWP in this and other countries, it was 
widely understood that there was no possibility of the SWP carrying out 
majority decisions with which it did not agree as was also the case with 
the other two components because of unresolved political4 differences. 
The SWP position was a cynical ploy to further recruitment to the SWP at 
the cost of disrupting the ULA. The aggressive promotion of the SWP had 
already, at that stage, caused serious tensions within the People Before 
Profit Alliance. These were further exacerbated when the SWP 
unilaterally announced, without consultation even with People before 
Profit, that Clr Brid Smith (SWP and PBP) would stand in the same 
constituency as Joan Collins TD (PBP) in the next general election!

In the early days of June 2012, Mick Wallace TD publicly admitted that 
he had intentionally withheld VAT collected from house buyers from the 
Revenue.

It was clear to WUAG that the greatest possible distance should be put 
between the ULA and Mick Wallace.

On the following Saturday at a meeting of the Steering Committee WUAG 
proposed that ULA call on Mick Wallace to resign from the Dail. The WUAG 
view was that Wallace was not a fit person to be a public 
representative. I explained that ULA campaigns in defence of public 
services and in favour of tax equity would be irreparably damaged by any 
association with Wallace and that the entire ULA project would be 
damaged as a result. The SP announced that while we should condemn the 
actions of Wallace, it would veto any attempt to call on him to resign 
from the Dail. I spent some minutes attempting to persuade the SP 
representatives in a fraternal manner that this would prove to be a 
disastrous decision which they should change. The SP cited the 
democratic rights of constituents as justification for the intended 
veto. The meeting was informed that WUAG would be calling for the 
resignation of Wallace in its own name in any event on the following 
day. Other Dail deputies had already called for the resignation of 
Wallace. Anything less than a call for his resignation would be 
interpreted by workers as “being soft” on Mick Wallace and tax evasion.

Why would any sane socialist organisation take a soft line on the 
continued membership of the legislature by a capitalist builder who had 
publicly admitted not passing on VAT on the sale of houses to the 
Revenue? Incredibly, the real agenda of the SP was to retain a dominant 
position over the SWP within and outside the ULA. The SP had two TDs and 
the SWP had but one. I believe that the Socialist Party took the view 
that if the SP called for the resignation of Wallace that Clare Daly TD 
would leave the Socialist Party and that this would reduce the SP to one 
TD, the same as the rival SWP. The SP decided to take a softer line in 
order to maintain dominance over the SWP within the ULA. ULA TDs had 
called for the resignation of Michael Lowry TD. Why not Mick Wallace?

Of course Clare Daly left the SP shortly afterwards in any event. 
Because of the position taken by the SP at the Steering Committee Clare 
was able to explain on television that she did not call for the 
resignation of Mick Wallace because the Socialist Party had not called 
for his resignation!

The SWP had turned the second annual conference of ULA into a “bear 
garden” in pursuit of their campaign to set aside the Alliance and 
replace it with a unitary organisation based on one person-one vote 
though serious political4 differences between the components had not 
even been discussed let alone resolved.

WUAG decided that the opportunist policy of the SP on the Wallace issue 
and the virulent factionalism of the SWP if allowed to go unchecked 
would fatally damage the ULA as a vehicle for the creation of a mass 
left party on a principled political basis.

Consequently, in an attempt to retrieve the situation, WUAG tabled two 
motions for the ULA Steering Committee. The first proposed that the ULA 
call on Mick Wallace to resign from the DAIL as it had proposed when the 
Wallace issue first arose. The second proposed that the SWP withdraw its 
internal bulletin of Feb the second which announced that the ULA had 
collapsed and that the other components should be criticised publicly. 
In a rare show of unity, the two motions were vetoed by the SP and the 
People before Profit Alliance including the SWP!!! In a cynical 
manoeuvre, the SWP representative proposed that there be a three month 
moratorium on publicly criticising each other. An unaligned delegate 
quite tellingly asked: “Why only for 3 months” He had summed it all up.

The ULA is now in complete disarray. The lesson is that it is impossible 
to attempt the political reorganisation of Irish workers in alliance 
with the SP and/or the SWP unless these organisations fundamentally 
change their approach. Each will prefer that any regroupment be damaged 
rather than allow its rival to out-grow it. Out-growing their rival is 
their over-riding priority.

There are of course periods in political life when left wing 
organisations should give priority to recruiting individuals. In quiet 
periods, that is all that can be done and it should be done in order to 
prepare for times of political crisis. The problem arises when 
organisations prioritise recruitment to their own political 
organisations at all times including periods such as the present when a 
major breakthrough is possible and necessary at a mass level.

Seamus Healy and his colleagues has been working in South Tipperary for 
25 years. It is the only constituency where a working class based 
political organisation has replaced the Labour Party as the main 
political organisation of workers. The SWP has been active in a number 
of provincial centres for at least as long without success. Though they 
have had many dedicated and capable members in these centres they were 
unable to make a significant impact. The problem was at Dublin/London 
leadership level not at local level.

There must be a new and early attempt to reorganise Irish workers. The 
rivalry between the SP and the SWP and the related prioritisation of 
recruitment to their own sects makes it impossible for them to make a 
positive contribution to the political reorganization of entire layers 
of workers at present.

I am not suggesting that the door should be closed to political 
alliances of left-wing organisations in future. But any future alliance 
must be subject to two preconditions.

Firstly, it must be on a principled political basis. Above all, 
participants must rule out coalition government with capitalist parties. 
Secondly, and crucially, all participating groups must place the 
political reorganization of entire sections of workers above recruitment 
to their own organisations.

I understand that a new initiative will be launched by WUAG in the near 
future.

I will not be entering into further public political discussion on these 
matters. I am of course available for further discussion with 
individuals including the many well intentioned members of the SWP and 
the SP.

I will be devoting my time to politically reorganising actual groups and 
layers of workers. That is the task of the hour. The failure of the ULA 
initiative must be quickly overcome. There is no time to lose. Otherwise 
the Irish workers will pay a heavy political price for the failure of 
the ULA.

  Paddy Healy, former Member of Steering Committee, ULA  01/01/2013

1 The rally was well attended by approximately 450 people of whom at 
least 200 were    political activists. Speaking queues were hogged by SP 
and SWP activists. The SP advocated mass rallies “of at least 30,000” 
and unofficial workplace walk-outs. Not to be outdone, the SWP advocated 
“shutting down the country” through unofficial strikes. While these 
events are very much to be desired they bear no relation to the current 
mood among workers. Because of the demoralising effect of the 
treacherous activity of the trade union leadership in recent years, 
workers have not staged spontaneous walk-outs even when their pay has 
been cut! This will, of course, change in the future. But it is a 
suicidal error to base immediate tactics on a change that has yet to 
take place.

  2  Before his assassination in 1940, Trotsky has written a document 
entitled “The Fourth International and War”. In this document he warned 
that peacetime agitational methods (strikes, demonstrations etc) were 
insufficient in a situation of war and occupation. If the workers were 
in the trenches, it was necessary for the revolutionaries to be in the 
trenches with them irrespective of the revolutionary attitude to the 
war. The British and European Trotskyist leaders ignored this advice. 
Safe from conscription, some spent the war years in neutral countries, 
including Ireland. After the war, the British social democrats had no 
difficulty in marginalising those who were not in the trenches. Many 
workers had been wounded themselves or had lost relatives. The French 
Communist Party had no difficulty in marginalising those who had not 
participated in underground armed struggle against the Nazi occupation. 
The Trotskyist movement broke up into several sects. The sects were 
revived after the war under the leadership of those responsible for the 
war-time debacle. There was no admission of mistakes. This meant that 
the membership was largely confined to the intelligentsia and isolated 
from the working class.. Factionalism and rivalry became the main reason 
for existence of each sect. Unfortunately this position continues to 
this day ( Pierre Broué,Trotskyist and Lecturer, University of Grenoble 
has written on the history of the Trotskyist movement during the war.)

3 Extract from SWP internal Bulletin Feb 2, 2012

*United Left Alliance*

The space that the ULA should occupy is now the realm of Sinn Fein 
spokespeople. The weakness of the ULA is a product of the sectarianism 
of the SP and the conservatism of Joan Collins and the Healy group. On a 
steering committee of 6 we have one representative and all proposals we 
put forward over the last year are vetoed. We suggested a common ULA 
strategy for the household campaign but this was shot down as the other 
components would rather not be tied to the SWP but would rather side 
with the anarchist/eirigi elements of the left who are more than happy 
to cooperate when it comes to marginalising the SWP. The SP’s formalism 
will be the subject of an article produced by the PC to explain their 
politics.

We are going into the open with our critique of the state of the ULA. 
This involved pointing out the others political positions. Putting down 
motions at ULA branches for action e.g. to support the Right To Work 
demo on April the 14th. By building an open and democratic ULA on the 
ground in key areas we can prove in practice the poverty of the SP’s 
political positions. The steering committee want to suggest adding 
‘independents’ to the committee but this is just a sop to democracy. 
Instead of one member one vote and a delegate based leadership structure 
we end up with the insane: the semi-anarchist ‘independent’ in the ULA 
and the reformist on the right of the ULA can represent one another? So 
heterogenous elements with no shared platform can be represented by one 
individual?

The long delayed conference will now take place on April 21st with a 
separate meeting for independents- we should demand that this separate 
meeting report back to the main conference and that there has to be a 
vote on any proposals that are put forward.
  The NPA in France has declined from 10,000 to 3,000 members because of 
the logjam at the top. Instead of open votes they have ‘platforms’ who 
each put forward a proposal and opposing proposals are amalgamated. So 
one faction says ‘we are for the veil ban’ the other says ‘we are 
against’ and you try to formulate a position that encompasses both!! 
This destroys the ability to take any action.

In summary: Kieran Allen’s document on the ULA will be published soon 
and we should already be open in our critique of the reasons for the 
collapse of the ULA. We should put down proposals for action in ULA 
branches- especially the protest at the Labour Conference (this had been 
planned by SWP as a non-ULA event led by SWP only without consultation 
with SP or WUAG( PH))
4 Political Differences.

There are serious political differences on a number of issues between 
the 3 founding components of the ULA. For example the SP is opposed to 
the ULA organising in the 6 counties, capitulating to Unionist pressure. 
Indeed a leading member of SP attempted to prevent trade unionists 
living in Co Tyrone being admitted to a rank and file trade union 
network. Following this incident, WUAG found it necessary to declare 
that any attempt to prevent those living or working in the six counties 
from joining the ULA would be a red line issue for WUAG.  While the SWP 
is technically in favour of the ULA organising on an All Ireland basis, 
in practice it agitates there in a largely partitionist framework . It 
has never raised a northern issue on the Steering Committee of ULA. In 
my opinion, it merely declares that it is in favour of the ULA being 
organised on an All Ireland basis in order to out-recruit the SP among 
nationalists workers.

-- 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an 
exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland 
(SC 038302).






More information about the Marxism mailing list