It is with profound sadness that I hear about the death of Alan Gelfand, who truly was a fighter for socialism. I never met Alan, and I regretfully cannot call him my friend, but his struggle had a profound bearing on my own political development.
The conclusion of his struggle against the Socialist Workers Party (US) in 1983 coincided with the year I became involved in the Trotskyist movement. After a year as a supporter, I finally joined the WRP before the split, which was, in itself, a seminal moment for me. Although, as a teenager, I spent well over a thousand pounds on Marxist literature from the then Militant Tendency, they had nothing on the history of American Trotskyism. After the split, the then minority held classes on American Trotskyism.
I read James Cannon’s “The Struggle for a Proletarian Party” and many other works. I still have the books in my Library. Again, it was during the Split that I became familiar with the history of recent American Trotskyism, as embodied in the struggles of the Workers League. One thing that always struck me was the high level of camaraderie among the American comrades. They were on a different political and intellectual level and somewhat inspiring. Meeting Jean and Bill Brust was a thrill of a lifetime.
The first time I heard about the Security and the Fourth International (I had purchased a copy of How the GPU Murdered Trotsky but never read it, a bad habit that continues to this day) was when I read David North’s articles on the Death of Tom Henehan. Leon Trotsky and the development of Marxism, 1982, was published in the Young Socialists paper of the Workers Revolutionary Party. These articles were reprinted in the pages of the Young Socialist in 1984. I always read the YS paper as it contained far more interesting articles than the Newsline, which seemed more of a comic to me at the time. I learnt nothing about Trotskyism from it.
It was during the split that I learnt not only about the Security and the Fourth International investigation, but it was my first introduction to Gelfand’s struggle. During the division, a large number of internal documents were circulated by the minority. A large number of these documents pertained to security and the Fourth International. But it was only with the release in 1985 of the two books The Gelfand Case: A Legal History of the Exposure of U.S. Government Agents in the Leadership of the Socialist Workers Party – Volumes One and Two (1 and 2/ I and II), Paperback that I really began to fully understand the havoc caused by the murderous agents of the GPU.
Gelfand will always have a special place in my political heart. It is inspiring that he faced death with the same approach he had to life, as the great poet Dylan Thomas wrote.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at the close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Finally, as David North wrote, “In his final words to a comrade and close friend, Alan said: ‘It’s hard to say goodbye. But I have joy in my heart and a smile on my face, and confidence in the movement and in my comrades.” Alan Gelfand will never be forgotten. His place in this history of the Fourth International and the hearts of his comrades is secure.”[1]
Notes
Alan Gelfand: A fighter for socialism and historical truth-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/11/08/eprm-n08.html
Harold Robbins Archive-https://findingaids.library.nyu.edu/tamwag/wag_175/
Register of the Socialist Workers Party records-https://oac.cdlib.org/static_findaids/ark:/13030/tf1k40019v.html
[1] Alan Gelfand: A fighter for socialism and historical truth-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/11/08/eprm-n08.html
“But who then, at that time [during the Stalinist repression], protested? Who stood up to shout his disgust? The Trotskyists can claim this honour. Following the example of their leader, who paid for his stubbornness by receiving the blow of an axe, they fought Stalinism totally, and they were the only ones. At the time of the great purges, they could no longer shout out their revolt except in the frozen vastness to which they were dragged to be more easily exterminated.”
Leopold Trepper: The Great Game
One of my favourite bookshops is the Amnesty International in Hammersmith, London. It is neither pretentious nor ostentatious, just a straightforward second-hand bookshop. I like it because you occasionally find a gem of a book. One such book was Peter Weiss’s Trotsky in Exile. I usually steer well clear of books on Trotsky’s life because they are inadvertently written by writers who are politically hostile to Trotsky and generally not worth reading, let alone reviewing. However, this play or book is different.
“Trotsky in Exile” is a play by German playwright and artist Peter Weiss, first performed in 1968. The play is a fictionalised account of the last years of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky’s life. Trotsky was residing in exile in Mexico and under constant threat from Stalin’s assassins.
The play is structured as a series of dialogues between Trotsky and various figures from his past and present, mostly revolutionaries, including his wife, Natalia Sedova, his son, Lev Sedov, and his former comrades in the Bolshevik Party. Through these conversations, Weiss explores Trotsky’s revolutionary ideology and his views on the Soviet Union under Stalin. The more Weiss read, the more he became a strong opponent of Stalinism. In 1967, this led him to meet one of Trotsky’s most important biographers, Isaac Deutscher.
Weiss’s portrayal of Trotsky as a complex and conflicted figure is an honest one. Outside of Trotsky’s writings on the impact of exile and political isolation on his family, this is one of the few books that examines his personal life in detail. While being faithful to Trotsky’s politics, Weiss employs Brechtian theatre devices, such as music and dance, to create a sense of distance and alienation. This style serves to underscore the play’s political and ideological themes, highlighting how history and ideology shape individual lives and experiences.
Peter Weiss (1916-1982 is arguably one of Germany’s most important artistic figures. He was an extraordinarily talented artist. He worked as a painter, novelist, filmmaker, and dramatist throughout his life. Weiss was comfortable in German literary and artistic circles. He was fond of Bertolt Brecht, seeing The Threepenny Opera and The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny in 1930.
In the 1960s, Weiss had a friendship with the German-born, Swiss writer Hermann Hesse. In a letter to his long-time friend Hesse in 1961, Weiss writes, “I am very preoccupied with the art which first comes about when reason, rational thinking is switched off. I have been unable myself to resolve this conflict: sometimes it seems to me that the most essential lies in the dark and the subconscious, then however it occurs to me that one can only work today in an extremely conscious way, as if the spirit of the times demands that the writer does not lose his way in regions of half-darkness.”
Unlike most of his generation of artists, Weiss was deeply interested in the seminal experiences of the twentieth century – the crimes of fascism, the October Revolution, and its subsequent betrayal by the Stalinist bureaucracy.
It is hardly surprising, given the political hostility to Leon Trotsky and the Trotskyist movement in general, that a play that is broadly sympathetic to Trotsky and his revolutionary life has hardly been performed, let alone written about. With 2016 marking the 100th anniversary of Weiss’s birth, no attempt was made to stage “Trotsky in Exile”.
As Stefan Steinberg writes, “To my knowledge, the play is unique in its attempt to portray Trotsky’s life and political struggle on stage. The work has its flaws and, on occasion, reveals the influence of Weiss’s discussions with Ernest Mandel, the leader of the Pabloite Unified Secretariat. What is striking about the play, however, is Weiss’s valiant effort to correct all manner of Stalinist falsifications, to restore Trotsky to his rightful place in history as a leader of the Russian Revolution alongside Lenin and as the principal Marxist opponent of the Stalinist degeneration in the Soviet Union.
Of great interest also in Trotsky in Exile is Weiss’s recognition of the central role of culture in assessing the October Revolution and Trotsky’s historical significance. Weiss had studied Trotsky’s Literature and Revolution and devotes a scene of his play to a discussion among Lenin, Trotsky and leaders of the Dadaist art movement. In Zurich in 1916, Lenin is known to have met political co-thinkers in the same café frequented by Tristan Tzara, Richard Huelsenbeck and other leading lights of the Dada movement. With legitimate poetic licence, Weiss brings the remarkable figures together in a discussion about the prospects for art in a post-revolutionary Soviet Union. A later scene features Weiss’s old mentor Breton in discussion with Trotsky and Diego Rivera in Mexico.”[1]
In the 1960s, Weiss became increasingly politically radical. One form this radicalisation took was, as mentioned by Steinberg, was Weiss’s conversation with Ernest Mandel.[2] Weiss had no fundamental understanding of Mandel’s politics. Mandel broke from orthodox Trotskyism. As Max Brody points out
“Mandel sought to provide the economic justification for the rejection by Pabloism of the revolutionary role of the working class. He claimed capitalism had reached a new stage, in which the imperialist powers had resolved the inner contradictions that resulted in the barbarity of the early 20th century. He initially referred to this new period as “neo-capitalism. “To make the central point from the outset, Mandel’s embrace of Pabloism did not flow from an incorrect economic theory, but the reverse. His economic analysis was based on his rejection of the revolutionary role of the working class as the harbinger of capitalism’s demise.[3]
Weiss’s inability to understand the differences between orthodox Trotskyism and the Pabloism of Ernest Mandel was behind his decision to include Joseph Hansen in his book. However, Weiss did not know that Hansen was heavily involved in the assassination of Leon Trotsky. However, once Hansen’s treachery was in the public domain, Weiss should have at least told his readership of Hansen’s role in the assassination of Leon Trotsky.
According to a document entitled The Role of Joseph Hansen “The initial stages of the (Security and the Fourth International)investigation uncovered recently declassified documents, which revealed the conspiracy that prepared Trotsky’s assassination and the fatal role played by agents who had managed to infiltrate all the major political centres of the Fourth International. The ICFI uncovered documents relating to the activities of agents such as Mark Zborowski, who became the principal assistant of Trotsky’s son, Leon Sedov. Zborowski played a key role in the murder of Sedov and other leading members of the Fourth International in Europe.
Another important Stalinist agent, who supplied the Kremlin with valuable information on Trotsky’s activities, was Sylvia Caldwell (née Callen), the personal secretary of James P. Cannon; however, the most significant information uncovered by the ICFI related to the activities of Joseph Hansen. Documents discovered in the US National Archives and others obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Hansen, immediately after the assassination of Trotsky, sought out and established a covert relationship with high-level US government agents. One such document, a letter from the American Consul in Mexico City to an official in the State Department, dated September 25, 1940, reported that Hansen “wishes to be put in touch with someone in your confidence located in New York to whom confidential information could be imparted with impunity.”[4]
Weiss’s radicalism and defence of Leon Trotsky against the slander of the Stalinists led to his investigation by the East German Stalinist police, following the publication and production of Trotsky in Exile. Weiss, in the eyes of the Stasi, had become a traitor.
The Stasi’s “Operational Information No. 551/69” of September 5, 1969, reported “that the enemy side is making massive efforts to win over and misuse famous authors for deliberate and destructive ideological purposes,” and “it should be recognised that the enemy has succeeded in turning the author Peter Weiss, who has been successfully featured in our theatres. The Stasi report described Trotsky in Exile as a “clear commitment to anti-Soviet positions” and made clear it favoured a total ban on the work and its author in the GDR.
To conclude, as Weiss writes, “ Every word that I write down and submit for publication is political. It is intended to reach a large audience and achieve a specific effect. I submit my writings to one of the communication media, and then they are consumed by the audience. The way in which my words are received depends to a great extent on the social system under which they are distributed. Since my words are but a small and ever-diminishing fraction of available opinions, I have to achieve the greatest possible precision if my views are to make their way”[5]
Notes
1. The Heritage We Defend David North, 1988. The Heritage We Defend was first published in book form in 1988. Its origins lie in the political struggle waged by the ICFI and the Workers League, the predecessor of the Socialist Equality Party of the United States, from 1982 to 1986, to defend Trotskyism against the nationalist opportunism of the ICFI’s former British section, the Workers Revolutionary Party.
2. Peter Weiss The Necessary Decision- Ten work points of an author in this divided world-NLR I/47•Jan/Feb 1968
[3] The ICFI’s exposure of Ernest Mandel’s “neo-capitalism” and the analysis of the global economic crisis: 1967–1971-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/09/09/rvtn-s09.html
‘If the Vietnamese peasants can do it, why can’t we?’
Tariq Ali
He embodies the French expression, “Before 30 a revolutionary, after 30, a swine!”—except, in his case, the swinishness developed early on and just grew.
David Walsh
The dialectics of history have already hooked him and will raise him up. He is needed by all of them; by the tired radicals, by the bureaucrats, by the Nepmen, the upstarts, by all the worms that are crawling out of the upturned soil of the manured revolution. He knows how to meet them on their ground, he speaks their language, and he knows how to lead them. He has the deserved reputation of an old revolutionist, which makes him invaluable to them as a blinder on the eyes of the country. He has will and daring. He will not hesitate to utilise them and to move them against the Party. Right now, he is organising himself around the sneaks of the party, the artful dodgers.
Leon Trotsky
Statement of 1924 on Joseph Stalin’s growing power base, in Stalin, An Appraisal Of The Man And His Influence (1966); also in Stalin’s Russia 1924-53 by Michael Lynch, p. 18
All the parties of capitalist society, all its moralists and all its sycophants will perish beneath the debris of the impending catastrophe. The only party that will survive is the party of the world socialist revolution…
Leon Trotsky
Their morals and ours: and, The moralists and sycophants against Marxism (ed. 1968)
Street Fighting Years is the first part of a two-part biography.[1] By Tariq Ali, one of the best-known and one of the worst political opportunists and scoundrels ever to disgrace the workers’ movement. This new edition from Verso covers Ali’s litany of betrayals throughout the sixties and beyond. This edition includes a new introduction, as well as the famous interview conducted by Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn with John Lennon and Yoko Ono in 1971.
After Street Fighting Years was written, Ali was already looking for “greener pastures,”. He became a darling of the bourgeois media, a novelist and a political pundit. He told the Guardian in May 2010: “It’s a problem people have had to come to terms with at different times in history: what do you do in a period of defeat?”
Ali came from a high-class family in Lahore. His uncle was the chief of Pakistan’s military intelligence. Ali went to England to study at Oxford. In 1968, he joined the International Marxist Group 1968. The IMG was the British section of the Pabloite movement. This was a retched organisation that, according to David Walsh, specialised in “political provocation, with more than its share of ‘naughty schoolboys.’ Dressed in Mao caps and the latest gear, they would occasionally show up at picket lines or in working-class neighbourhoods. Mostly, they stayed on the university campuses. Their supporters helped produce journals such as the Black Dwarf and the Red Mole.”[2]
Ali’s book covers the decade of the 1960s and into the 1970s, which were years of political, social and economic upheaval both in Europe and around the world. That the Capitalist system was able to survive during this period was thanks to the Stalinist and social democratic parties, and the trade unions, which used their mass influence to control the struggles and lead them to defeat. Ali, in his book, provides a left cover for these organisations.
Ali dedicates his book to another fellow political scoundrel, Ernest Mandel. According to a statement by the Socialist Equality Party, Ali was Mandel’s disciple. The leader of the Pabloite organisation in Britain could not contain his enthusiasm for perestroika and its initiators. He dedicated his book, Revolution From Above: Where Is the Soviet Union Going?, published in 1988, to Boris Yeltsin. His moving tribute declared that Yeltsin’s “political courage has made him an important symbol throughout the country. Ali, describing his visits to the Soviet Union, informed his readers that “I felt really at home.” The policies of Gorbachev had initiated the revolutionary transformation of Russian society from above, Ali asserted. There were those, he noted cynically, who “would have preferred (me too!) if the changes in the Soviet Union had been brought about by a gigantic movement of the Soviet working class and revived the old organs of political power—the soviets—with new blood. That would have been very nice, but it didn’t happen that way.” Ali then offered a succinct summary of the Pabloite perspective, which combined in equal measures political impressionism, naiveté, and personal stupidity.”[3]
Ali’s treachery and outright stupidity were welcomed by other pseudo-left groups. Paul Foot, writing for the UK Socialist Workers Party, wrote in the Literary Review, “He may be a rotten Marxist, but he’s the best raconteur the British Left has seen since the war. So spoke a sectarian friend of mine some fifteen years ago about Tariq Ali. I agree with both propositions. I will join sectarian battle with Tariq before this is over (where better than in the Literary Review, none of whose readers agree with either of us) but it is worth saying right away that there is no time of the day or night when any sane person would be sorry to see Tariq Ali and to talk with him. He laughs most of the time, especially at himself and his comrades. He is the most marvellous and melodious public speaker, with a deep love and care for the English language. What he is like speaking in his first language is beyond imagining.”[4]
Ali’s book catalogues all the major revolutions and political upheavals, but in a very cursory and superficial manner and without examining the major defeats and reasons behind several high-profile defeats. Take France 1968, Ali writes, “In France, there was the largest General Strike in capitalism’s history and when the trade union bureaucrats went up to the workers and said ‘the bosses want to share a bit more of the cake with you’, the response from rank-and-file workers was ‘No! We want the whole bakery.” Ali played a not small part in the defeat of the French working class in the events of May-June 1968.[5]
Another revolution mentioned by Ali is the Portuguese Revolution. He writes, “In 1975, the Portuguese workers, peasants, students, soldiers and young officers brought society to the brink of revolution. They created a feeling that a fundamental change to society was possible and was within our grasp. And we felt that revolutionary change in Portugal would feedback, deepen and revive our movement across the rest of Europe.” Despite occasional setbacks and defeats, the period as a whole bred confidence in ordinary people and a deepening radicalisation that lasted up until about 1975.
These “occasional setbacks” are the bloody defeats of revolutions that swept throughout Europe and beyond. None more so than the terrible defeat that the Portuguese working class suffered and is still dealing with the aftermath even today.
On April 25 1974, a coup by lower-ranked army officers overthrew Portugal’s fascist Estado Novo government. The coup opened the way for a massive mobilisation of the working class, which had not been seen in Portugal before. It was one of the most important revolutions since the Second World War and caught the international bourgeoisie completely by surprise. It would take nearly two years to defeat the revolution. With relatively little violence or bloodshed, the Portuguese bourgeoisie could take back power at the expense of a few limited reforms. The popular front government established by the revolution, which contained a significant Communist Party presence under the leadership of Álvaro Cunhal, handed over power without a murmur from the numerous pseudo-left groups.
Despite his catalogue of betrayals, Ali is still lionised in the bourgeois press. When asked What do you think are the prospects for the left today? He writes
“Starmer is dreadful. I’m in no doubt that his policies will create a space that, at the moment, the far right will try to fill. We need to respond. But we can’t simply do what we did in the past, in the same ways. In the 1970s, the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism were vital, but the world has changed, the situation is different, and we need appropriate responses. It won’t be easy, but you know it wasn’t always easy in the 1960s and 1970s. It took time to build the anti-Vietnam War movement. We were constantly under surveillance and harassment from the state.
Over the last few decades, we have witnessed the growth of dynamic movements, like Stop the War. Today, the struggle around Palestine has brought large numbers into action. The horrors of Gaza, the complicity of the Western governments in the slaughter, and the scale of the resistance movement on the streets will shape a generation. But we need to think about organisational outcomes, establishing networks and rebuilding a progressive political alternative. For the left, the Labour Party is finished. We should encourage the small number of left Labour MPS (especially those who had the whip removed) to work with the Independent MPS and together to try to offer an alternative vision and voice for the future. We need some type of home, not necessarily a formal political party, for the 200,000 who left Labour when Corbyn was marginalised and kicked out; a home to those from the Palestine and anti-imperialist movements; a home for the old and new left. I think we face a long period of rebuilding, there is no quick fix. But if we sit back and do nothing, things will only get worse.”[6]
As this answer shows, Ali has no qualms about ditching his radical past for a financially comfortable existence as a bourgeois commentator. There is no trace of his “brief spurt of leftism, which fizzled out by the late 1970s.
As David Walsh points out “Ali has never explained, anywhere, for any of his political peregrinations: Why he supposedly adopted Trotskyism in the late 1960s, or why he abandoned it some years later; why he wanted to disrupt Labour Party activities at one moment and later tried to install himself as a member. He embodies the French expression, “Before 30 a revolutionary, after 30, a swine!”—except, in his case, the swinishness developed early on and just grew.”
The Portuguese Workers’ Revolution 1974-5 pamphlet by Mark Osborn has been re-published to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Portugal’s Carnation Revolution of 1974-5. The labour movement led by the syndicalist CGT, which belonged to the Portuguese anarchists, FARP, the Socialist-led Portuguese Worker Federation, and the small Inter-Sindical Commission led by the Communist Party, entered an unholy alliance to betray the revolution. The Pabloite groups, along with the pseudo-lefts, who covered up this betrayal, acted as secondary agencies of imperialism. While purporting to examine the politics of the Portuguese worker’s revolution, this pamphlet covers this betrayal up. Despite playing only a minor role in the betrayal, Workers Liberty has workers’ and students’ blood on its hands. The betrayal of the revolution is all the more pertinent since, had the revolution succeeded, it would have delivered a mighty blow to the solar plexus of international capital and inspired revolutionary movements worldwide.
On April 25 1974, a coup by lower-ranked army officers overthrew Portugal’s fascist Estado Novo government. The coup opened the way for a massive mobilisation of the working class, which had not been seen in Portugal before. It was one of the most important revolutions since the Second World War and caught the international bourgeoisie completely by surprise. It would take nearly two years to defeat the revolution. With relatively little violence or bloodshed, the Portuguese bourgeoisie could take back power at the expense of a few limited reforms. The popular front government established by the revolution, which contained a significant Communist Party presence under the leadership of Álvaro Cunhal, handed over power without a murmur from the numerous Pseudo left groups.
The coup was started by young military captains in the national armed forces. In her book, Raquel Varela[1] emphasises that these were only captains, as if this made them unconscious socialists. Rank and file soldiers did indeed come over to the revolution, as experienced by Bob Light, who saw first-hand soldiers giving the clenched fist salute and waving red carnations. Slogans such as ” the soldiers are sons of the workers” and “down with capitalist exploitation” were also heard on the streets. But despite these sections of the rank-and-file soldiers won the revolution, the Portuguese bourgeoisie would still control the army.
The Carnation Revolution was the latest of a line of revolutionary movements betrayed by Stalinism and Pabloism. Beginning in May 1968 in Paris, the 1969 ‘hot autumn’ in Italy, strike waves in Germany and Britain in the early 1970s and the struggle in Greece against military rule in 1973-4. International Socialist leader Tony Cliff argued that ‘Portugal, the weakest link in the capitalist chain in Europe, can become the launching pad for the socialist revolution in the whole continent.’
Cliff’s remarks were pure bravado as his International Socialist movement ensured this did not happen. Instead of being ‘the launching pad of the socialist revolution’, the defeat of the Portuguese revolution paved the way for various neoliberalism regimes. Varela’s book is a political amnesty for the betrayals of the Stalinists and radical groups such as the IS.
Although the revolution originated in Africa, the 1974 revolution was ultimately shaped by Portugal’s belated historical development. As Paul Mitchell describes in his 2024 article, “By 1973, there were some 42,000 companies in Portugal—one-third of them employing fewer than ten workers—but about 150 companies dominated the entire economy. Most were related to foreign capital but were headed by a few wealthy Portuguese families (Espirito Santo, de Melo, de Brito, Champalimaud). For example, the de Melos’ monopoly company Companhia União Fabril (CUF) owned parts of Guinea-Bissau and produced 10 per cent of the gross national product. Despite this industrialisation, a third of the population still worked as agricultural labourers, many in large estates or latifundia. An estimated 150,000 people lived in shantytowns concentrated around the capital, Lisbon. Food shortages and economic hardship—wages were the lowest in Europe at US$10 a week in the 1960s—led to the mass emigration of nearly 1 million people to other European countries, Brazil and the colonies. The 1960s also saw the emergence of liberation movements in the Portuguese African colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. Fighting three guerrilla movements for over a decade drained the Portuguese economy and labour force. Nearly half the budget was spent on maintaining more than 150,000 African troops.[2]
He continues, “Compulsory military service lasting for four years, combined with poor military pay and conditions, laid the basis for grievances and the development of oppositional movements amongst the troops. These conscripts became the basis for the emergence of an underground movement known as the “Movement of the Captains.” The continuing economic drain caused by the African military campaigns was exacerbated by the world financial crisis that developed in the late 1960s.”
In the 1970s, the Portuguese ruling elite confronted a massive strike wave at home and uprisings in the colonies. Nearly one half of the national budget was spent keeping 150,000 troops abroad fighting the national liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. Compulsory military service combined with low pay intensified grievances in the army. It stimulated an oppositional movement amongst the troops known as the “Movement of the Captains,” which later developed into the Armed Forces Movement (MFA).
The Armed Forces Movement (MFA) or “movement of the Captains”, glorified by Varela, became an important bulwark against revolution once it was in power alongside the PCP. To stop the revolutionary mobilisation of the working class, the MFA invited the Communist Party (PCP) into government. The Communist Party was asked to take part in the First Provisional Government in May 1974 and took part in all six provisional governments. These governments were popular fronts containing trade unions, the Socialist Party, the Church, and the upper hierarchy of the armed forces.
The Socialist Party and the Church initially did not want the Communists in the government. Still, military sections knew the PCP would be useful in controlling rank-and-file soldiers and the working class. As Varela herself points out, “’The Portuguese Communist Party was prepared to abandon its radical army supporters (and a great many others) in exchange for a continued stake in government. The military left had become a burden on the Communist Party because its performance undermined the balance of power with the Nine and peaceful coexistence agreements between the USA, Western Europe and the USSR. Some 200 soldiers and officers, plus a handful of building workers, were arrested’ (p.246).
The PCP was outlawed, and its leadership was imprisoned or driven into exile. Following the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, the party had been purged in 1929, and Bento Gonçalves, who had only joined the organisation the previous year, was installed as General Secretary.
Cunhal joined the PCP in 1931 whilst studying law at university and left for the Soviet Union to attend a congress of Communist youth in September 1935. It was at this time that the Stalinist bureaucracy began to advance its policy of building “popular fronts” with “democratic” bourgeois governments and liberal-reformist elements worldwide, supposedly to combat fascism and defend the USSR. Cunhal, who came to epitomise the policy of popular frontism in Portugal, became the leader of the youth organisation and joined the Central Committee of the PCP in 1936 at 22.
One of the most important questions of the revolution concerned the political nature of the MFA and its “armed intervention” unit, the Continental Operations Command (COPCON—Comando Operacional do Continente)
COPCON was composed of 5,000 elite troops. Its leader was Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho. To cover over its real intentions, the MFA said it was in favour of an “alliance of the MFA and the people.”The PSP, PCP, and Pseudo groups never challenged this blatant lie. Instead, the PCP declared the MFA was a “guarantor of democracy” and developed close relations with Carvalho, General Vasco Goncalves and other members of the Junta.
The fact that the various popular front governments could operate with impunity is down to the role played by pseudo-Lefts like the IS. Readers need to know the history of the IS. As Mitchell points out, the “International Socialist (IS) organisation (today’s Socialist Workers Party in Britain) was represented by the Revolutionary Party of the Proletariat (PRP—Partido Revolucionário do Proletariado). The founders of the International Socialists had broken from the Fourth International in the 1940s, claiming that the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and its satellites was a new class in a new social system (state capitalism). This granted the Stalinist bureaucracy a certain legitimacy, not due to its parasitic character, but expressed a prostration before the post-war stabilisation of imperialism. The IS’ radical phraseology, its glorification of trade union syndicalism combined with a semi-anarchist stance, served only to conceal its refusal to challenge the political domination of the working class by the social democratic and Stalinist bureaucracies.”
The promotion of the popular front by the IS had nothing in common with orthodox Marxism. The following is its analysis of the popular front: “Poder Popular (popular power), underpinned by the Aliança Povo-MFA (an alliance of the people and the MFA), emerged as the ideology for the MFA. It set out to unite the military with workers, land workers, tenants and slum-dwellers. The military made use of the prestige acquired through carrying out the coup against the regime. Popular power was perceived as the living alternative to the bourgeois focus on parliamentary democracy. This is not to say that the army and workers were always united, but the impact of the people’s movement on the armed forces, and vice versa, came to be an integral part of the Portuguese story. But the slogan “Unity of the people and the MFA” was double-edged: not only did the people influence the army, but also the revolutionary movement’s reliance upon the radicals in the army was to be part of its undoing”.
The reader should compare the statement above with how Leon Trotsky described and evaluated the Popular Front: “The question of questions at the moment is the Popular Front. The left centrists seek to present this question as a tactical or even as a technical manoeuvre to be able to peddle their wares in the shadow of the Popular Front. In reality, the Popular Front is the main question of proletarian class strategy for this epoch. It also offers the best criterion for the difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism, for it is often forgotten that the greatest historical example of the Popular Front is the February 1917 revolution. From February to October, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries, who represent a very good parallel to the ‘Communists’ [i.e., Stalinists] and the Social Democrats, were in the closest alliance and were in a permanent coalition with the bourgeois party of the Cadets, together with whom they formed a series of coalition governments. Under the sign of this Popular Front stood the whole mass of the people, including the workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ councils. To be sure, the Bolsheviks participated in the councils. But they did not make the slightest concession to the Popular Front. They demanded to break this Popular Front, destroy the Cadets’ alliance, and create a genuine workers’ and peasants’ government.”
To conclude, the fact that after 45 years of the revolution, its “memory” is still in dispute is down to the treacherous role of the various Pabloite and Pseudo Left groups such as Workers Liberty. As Paul Mitchell points out, the Portuguese Revolution “would have been a mighty blow to international capital and inspired worldwide movements in the 1970s. Only the International Committee of the Fourth International and its Portuguese supporters, the League for the Construction of the Revolutionary Party (LCRP), called for the PCP and PSP to break from the bourgeois parties, the state machine and the MFA. It demanded the dissolution of the army and the creation of workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ soviets in opposition to the MFA and its proposals for a Constituent Assembly.
Further Reading
The Carnation Revolution: The Day Portugal’s Dictatorship Fell Hardcover – 4 April 2024 by Alex Fernandes
[1] A People’s History of the Portuguese Revolution
Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects Social Movements in Britain by John Kelly. Routledge-2018 295 pages
This new book on the history of contemporary Trotskyism is the first of its type by an academic. In my original review of this book, I said it is commendable for a major publisher like Routledge to produce such a book, but I now retract that sentiment. Kelly’s book is a lightly researched hack work. It is also a bit rich for an avowed Stalinist to write a book on the history of contemporary Trotskyism. A member of the British Communist Party during the 1980s Kelly still seems to have kept all the ideological baggage of his membership. His political friends in the Stalinist Morning Star concur: “It is an almost impenetrably confusing picture, which the author does his best to unravel. It’s an uphill task given the characteristic sectarian feature of Trotskyite organisations, resulting in frequent splits and divisions at both a national and international level[1].
One striking aspect of the few reviews that have appeared so far in the Pseudo Left press is their mild criticism of an author who is ideologically hostile to Trotskyism. Any serious Trotskyist organisation would have to defend its ideas from this type of hostile source. Ian Birchall, a member of the SWP, perhaps sums up the complacent and defensive attitude towards Kelly and his downplaying of the possibilities of any Trotskyist group leading a revolutionary struggle: “Now it looks doubtful that any of the small groups (what the French used to call groupuscules) described here will lead a revolution. But for all that, I don’t think it was just a waste of breath. For our generations, Trotskyism, at its best, was the form taken by what the American Marxist Hal Draper, in his magnificent pamphlet The Two Souls of Socialism, called ‘socialism from below’ – the belief that socialism, if it comes, will be the product of the self-emancipation of ordinary working people through mass action; it will not be the result of relying on elected representatives or liberation by ‘progressive’ armies. What form it will take in the future cannot be predicted. Still, history always works by continuities and ruptures, and somewhere amid the acres of print that Kelly has scrutinised, the spark of human liberation still lives”[2].
Birchall is supported by another SWP member, Joseph Choonara, who writes, “It should also be said, it is hard for me to hate a book that portrays me as an instance of “younger members” reaching “leading positions” in the Trotskyist movement (even if I have “done little to disturb oligarchic rule”).[3]
Kelly’s main problem is that his Stalinism heavily influences his conception of Trotskyism. His understanding of its history is limited, as we shall see later in this review, coloured by his politics. According to Kelly, only when Trotskyist organisations ditch their program and history do they achieve some limited success.
He writes: “The paradox of those success stories is that they were achieved precisely because Trotskyist groups set aside core elements of Trotskyist doctrine and focused on building broad-based, single-issue campaigns around non-revolutionary goals.” The whole focus of the book is given over to try and persuade the Trotskyists not to be Trotskyists. Kelly damns Trotskyism for not building “a mass Trotskyist party anywhere on the planet or led a socialist revolution, successful or otherwise”. It is according to Kelly a “rigid and unhelpful doctrine” and has a “millenarian, revolutionary vision”.
This theme of not leading a socialist revolution runs through the entire book. Two things strike one when reading the above comments. Firstly, as Kelly conveniently notes, capitalism has survived in no small way thanks to the betrayals and treachery of the Party he belonged to. Secondly it is just not true that Trotskyists have not led significant struggles throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. If Kelly had bothered to interview some orthodox Trotskyists of the SEP, he would have found this out. His ideologically driven flippancy also leads him to underplay the enormous internal struggles the Trotskyist movement has gone through, which in many respects were, in fact, life-and-death conflicts which impacted the lives of millions of workers around the globe.
Three significant struggles come directly to mind. The first is James P Cannon and Gerry Healy’s opposition to Pabloite revisionism, which led to the Open Letter’s issuing and the founding of the ICFI(International Committee of the Fourth International in 1953). Secondly Healy’s defense of Trotskyism against Cannon’s reunification with the Pabloites in 1963. Thirdly David North’s struggle against the Betrayal of Trotskyism by the WRP(Workers Revolutionary Party) 1984-85. These tremendous political conflicts have little interest for Kelly. A fact represented in the low coverage they received in this book.
Another theme running through Kelly’s book is his obsession with the size of the Trotskyists parties and the fact that there are so many. If Kelly had bothered to do a little more research and drawn from history namely the Russian revolution he would have found out that the Bolsheviks were small, tiny in fact at the beginning and they led a successful revolution.
While it could be said that Kelly is hostile to all Trotskyist parties, he has a particular distaste for the parties that make up the ICFI (International Committee of the Fourth International). In perhaps the most accurate statement of the whole book, he identifies the SEP (Socialist Equality Party) as orthodox Trotskyists. He sarcastically writes in a true Stalinist style that despite having only 50 members, it is “the sole political tendency on the face of the planet that sets as its aim the revolutionary mobilisation of the working class against imperialism”.[4]
Kelly, as already has been mentioned is incapable of understanding the history of the different tendencies. Either Kelly has not done enough research, or most probably due to his Stalinist politics, he does not care. This forces him to come up with ridiculous names for the different parties, like “institutional Trotskyism” and “Third Camp Trotskyism”. Kelly’s idea behind these strange names, which have no history in the Trotskyist movement, is to belittle these groups to be shunned like religious sects.
Kelly is backed up by Alex Callinicos of the SWP, who, instead of challenging this slander, writes, “It is perhaps appropriate here to consider why it was that the Trotskyist movement should so often have displayed the characteristics of religious sectaries.”[5]
Kelly believes Trotskyism has been isolated from the mass worker’s movement because of its almost religious adherence to principles and perspective. However, this so-called isolation is coming to an end. With the collapse of the old organisations, including his own, there was a changed relationship between Trotskyism and the working class. A point made by the ICFI when it correctly predicted: “the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the irrevocable discrediting of Stalinism, together with the political bankruptcy of the social-democratic and reformist parties and trade union organisations, would lead to a fundamental change in the relationship between the Trotskyist movement and militant sections of the working class and youth, radicalised by the deepening crisis of American and world capitalism”.[6]
It is quite striking that all Kelly draws from the centenary year of the Russian Revolution in his introduction is that the Trotskyist movement has not led a revolutionary struggle anywhere in the world, so why would they celebrate this revolution?If Kelly had bothered to leave his secluded university in London, he would have found some struggles that involved the Trotskyists in a significant way. Another thing that needs to be challenged by Kelly’s introduction is that the “Stalinist terror” was a product of the October Revolution. This lie has been peddled by academics sympathetic to Stalinism for decades.
It must be said that Kelly has approached the subject of contemporary Trotskyism from an entirely nationalist standpoint. Perhaps one of the most critical discussions inside the worker’s movement was the struggle to build a section of the Fourth International in Britain. The most crucial need during the early years of British Trotskyism was to accept the international perspective of the fourth international . As Trotsky wrote in 1938, “The present conference signifies a conclusive delimitation between those who are really IN the Fourth International and fighting every day under its revolutionary banner, and those who are merely ‘FOR’ the Fourth International, i.e. the dubious elements who have sought to keep one foot in our camp and one foot in the camp of our enemies… Under the circumstances, it is necessary to warn the comrades associated with the Lee group [the WIL] that they are being led on a path of evil clique politics, which can only land them in the mire. It is possible to maintain and develop a revolutionary political grouping of serious importance only based on great principles. The Fourth International alone embodies and represents these principles. A national group can maintain a consistently revolutionary course only if it is firmly connected in one organisation with co-thinkers worldwide and maintains a constant political and theoretical collaboration with them. The Fourth International alone is such an organisation. All purely national groupings, all those who reject international organisation, control and discipline, are in their essence reactionary.”[7]This struggle receives scant attention in Kelly’s book.
Chapter 1 -Theoretical Perspectives Kelly asks this question: “Trotskyists often describe their organisations as revolutionary vanguard parties built on the principles of ‘democratic centralism’ whose political aim is to destroy the capitalist state and the capitalist mode of production “.Having not been in a revolutionary party, it is beyond Kelly’s comprehension to understand that these parties are unlike any other party. Not only from an organisational point of view but, more importantly, from a perspective standpoint.
While accepting to a certain extent that Trotskyist parties are different from mainstream bourgeois parties, he goes on to slander these organisations, believing they are akin to religious sects that insist on upholding doctrinal purity. Given that Kelly belonged to a party that in the past took its orders from Stalin, who murdered more Bolsheviks than the Nazis and betrayed more workers struggle than any other organisation, it is a little rich for Kelly to try to take the political high ground.
It is also extraordinary that in this chapter Kelly has little to say on the history of his Party. He might want to note that the betrayals carried out by his organisation would have something to do with the isolation of the Trotskyists from the mass workers’ movements. These betrayals were done in the name of the October Revolution and discredited in 1917 in the eyes of many workers.
Chapter 2 Trotsky and the Origins of Trotskyism In this chapter, Kelly questions whether contemporary Trotskyist groups can describe themselves as the continuation of Leninism or Bolshevism, primarily because Trotsky changed his position on many issues. When someone makes such a statement in academia, it is standard practice to back it up with proof. Kelly does not do this. Why? Because to do this he would have to explain his hostility to Trotsky and his politics.
Kelly repeats some slanders of Trotsky’s position that have been the stock and trade of academics who have perpetrated a “Post-Soviet School of Historical Falsification”. As the Marxist writer Wolfgang Weber explains, “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians of this school—including Dmitri Volkogonov (Russia), Richard Pipes (US), Geoffrey Swain and Ian Thatcher (both UK)—rehashed the old Stalinist lies and falsifications about Trotsky to cut off the younger generation from the ideas of the most consistent Marxist opponents of Stalinism”[8]
Chapter 3, Development of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, part 1: 1950–1985 and Chapter 4, Development of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain, part 2: 1985–2017. While these two chapters cover much history, it is surprising that Kelly says next to nothing about the 1940s. The 1940’s are instrumental in understanding the subsequent trajectory of all the Trotskyist groups in Britain and internationally.
To discuss the years 1950-1985 in chapter three and then in chapter four, 1985-2017 would be a big ask for anyone. To say that Kelly’s analysis is simplistic would be an understatement. Kelly does not devote enough care and attention to the complex issues confronting the Trotskyist movement during this time.
The treatment of the SLL/WRP again reveals his political bias and does not contain a shred of objectivity. His treatment of the complex expulsion from the WRP of Alan Thornett is a case in point. To Kelly, this was just a power struggle between Gerry Healy, the leader of the SLL and Thornett. If Kelly had bothered to consult the documents of the Split in the WRP in 1985 produced by the ICFI, especially How the WRP Betrayed Trotskyism, he would have given his readers a far more balanced understanding.
As the above document states, “It was the height of political duplicity for Thornett to conspire against his own Party and then denounce the leadership for violating the constitution. Healy, who then had accumulated 45 years of experience within the communist movement, could recognise an anti-party clique when he saw one. However, it is another matter entirely whether the leadership was politically wise in acting to expel Thornett on organisational grounds before an exhaustive discussion of the political differences, regardless of their origins. This is not a question of being wise after the event. The Trotskyist movement had, before Thornett emerged on the scene, acquired a great deal of experience in dealing with unprincipled minorities — of which the most famous was the Shachtman-Burnham-Abern tendency. Experience has taught the Trotskyist movement that the political clarification of cadre must be the overriding priority in any factional struggle — even one involving a disloyal clique.”
Also, in these chapters, Kelly wastes excessive space on what it means to “assess trends in the membership of the Trotskyist movement over time”. The constant fixation with size belittles the Trotskyist movement’s importance and discourages a severe examination of the program and history.
Chapter 5 Doctrine, orthodoxy and sectarianism It is debatable how much Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin Kelly has read. Clearly, from this chapter, it is not enough. The early Marxists understood very early that the program builds the Party. From Marx’s time, orthodox Marxists have attached the highest importance to defending the Marxist method and program from attack by revisionists.
Kelly calls this defence dogmatic and sectarian. It must be said that the Trotskyist movement has survived greater insults than Kelly can produce. There is nothing new in Kelly’s stance. The Stalinists have been attacking Trotskyist conceptions since the late 1920s. Kelly is just rehashing their political positions and slanders.
Chapter 6 Party Recruitment In this chapter, Kelly again berates the Trotskyist movement for its low membership. Kelly does not explain what happened to the Labour Party and Communist Party politically regardless of whether they have grown or declined. Both of these organisations are organically hostile to the building of a revolutionary party and have spent their entire existence trying to prevent the growth of such an organisation.
Chapter 7 Party Electoral Performance Throughout his career, it would seem Kelly has been heavily critical of Trotskyist parties such as the SEP for not ditching their “ doctrinal” attitude towards elections. In his article Upbeat and the Margins: the British Trotskyist Left and their exceptionally poor election results[10], he states, “The extremely poor electoral performance, therefore, created a significant dilemma for these party leaders. On the one hand, an open acknowledgement of an extremely poor vote implies very little support for their programmes and potentially calls into question their main policies and possibly their core ideology. Moreover, an open admission of unpopularity could threaten the positive attachment of activists to their respective parties. On the other hand, the denial of poor electoral performance or claims that it constitutes some form of success, 1/3 potentially threaten the credibility and authority of the party leaders. The research was therefore undertaken to understand how Trotskyist party leaders constructed accounts of their electoral performance which identified positive achievements in the face of meagre vote shares”.
Kelly’s article shows some things. Firstly, Kelly has no faith that Trotskyism can win the working class to its banner with a revolutionary program. As Stalinists have advocated, they should ditch building a revolutionary party and concentrate on electoral politics. Failing that, Kelly encourages groups to liquidate their parties and work within popular front organisations, which many Pseudo Lefts groups have all in but name done.
Chapter 9 Working in the Trade Unions Kelly correctly states that “Trotskyists have always attached enormous importance to working inside the trade union movement because of the belief that it represents the most organised and class-conscious section of the working class “. Kelly intimates that the trade union question has been a vexing issue for the Marxist movement.
For Kelly, the issue is straightforward; he is uncritical of the trade union leadership. He cannot understand why orthodox Marxists are profoundly critical of the trade leadership’s betrayal but have reservations about the organisations.
As David North from the SEP states, “In the history of the Marxist movement, there are two political issues, or “questions,” that have been the source of exceptionally persistent controversy, spanning more than a Century. One is the “national question”, and the other is the “trade union” question”. One would think that there is something to be learned from so many unfortunate experiences. But like the old fools found in the tales of Boccaccio, the ageing and toothless radicals today are only too eager to play the cuckold again and again. Thus, the present-day “left” organisations still insist that the socialist movement is duty-bound to minister loyally to the needs and whims of the trade unions. Socialists, they insist, must acknowledge the trade unions as the worker’s organisation par excellence, the form most representative of the social interests of the working class. The trade unions, they argue, constitute the authentic and unchallengeable leadership of the working class — the principal and ultimate arbiters of its historical destiny. To challenge the authority of the trade unions over the working class, to question in any way the supposedly “natural” right of the trade unions to speak in the name of the working class is tantamount to political sacrilege. It is impossible, the radicals claim, to conceive of any genuine workers movement which is not dominated, if not formally led, by the trade unions. Only on the basis of the trade unions can the class struggle be effectively waged. And, finally, whatever hope there exists for the development of a mass socialist movement depends upon “winning” the trade unions, or at least a significant section of them, to a socialist perspective.
To put the matter bluntly, the International Committee rejects every one of these assertions, which are refuted both by theoretical analysis and historical experience. In the eyes of our political opponents, our refusal to bow before the authority of the trade unions is the equivalent of lèse-majesté. This does not trouble us greatly, for not only have we become accustomed, over the decades, to be in opposition to “left-wing” — or, to be more accurate — petty-bourgeois public opinion; we consider its embittered antipathy the surest sign that the International Committee is, politically speaking, on the correct path”[11].
Chapter 11 The proliferation of Trotskyist Internationals.The problem with this chapter, like all the rest of the book Kelly presents large numbers of statistics but very little analysis of how the different Trotskyist groups started and where they have finished. As I said earlier, there is a reason why Kelly does not in any detail discuss not only the international origins of the Fourth International but its origins in Britain. Everything Kelly examines he does so from a nationalist standpoint point. How could it be any different? He is, after all, a Stalinist. Anyone reading this chapter would be better off closing the book and purchasing a copy of the newly updated history of the Fourth International called The Heritage We Defend by David North.
This is a hack book written by a Stalinist who long ago made peace with capitalism and has no interest in a revolutionary struggle. Eternal waves of shame go to Routledge for publishing such a wretched book.
[4] Report to the Third National Congress of the Socialist Equality Party (UK)- [5] Alex Callinicos-Trotskyism-
[6] Socialist Equality Party holds founding Congress-19 September 2008-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/09/cong-s19.html
[7] Founding Conference of the Fourth International 1938 On Unification of The British Section- [8] A blow against the Post-Soviet School of Historical Falsification-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/lett-d31.html
[9] How the Workers Revolutionary Party Betrayed Trotskyism
[11]Why are Trade Unions Hostile to Socialism? -Two vexed questions By David North
The Twilight of World Trotskyism John Kelly London: Routledge, 2022. 144 pp., $59.95
My first duty is to correct a mistake I made in reviewing John Kelly’s book on British Trotskyism on this website. In that review, I praised Routledge for publishing a book about Trotskyism. I will not make the same mistake with this review. It says a lot about Routledge that they paid Kelly to spew his hatred of Trotskyism over two books. Kelly’s anti-Trotskyism goes way back. Kelly’s first so-called “critical investigation of Trotskyism” dates back to one of his earliest major books, Trade Unions and Socialist Politics (1988). The book was written as a defence of trade union Syndicalism while he was still a CPGB member and a Labour Party supporter.
As David North has written, “ The Labour Party, 118 years after its founding, is a ruthless instrument of British imperialism, led by a cabal of right-wing warmongers dedicated to the dismantling of even the limited reforms implemented by Labour governments in the years immediately following World War II. One can safely assume that Mr Kelly is a devoted follower of Jeremy Corbyn, the political eunuch who epitomises the impotence of the contemporary practitioners of pseudo-left, anti-Marxist and anti-Trotskyist politics. Swept into the leadership of the Labour Party with massive popular support, Corbyn proceeded to return power to the Blairite right wing. Outside of Britain, similar examples of political bankruptcy were provided by Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain.[1]
One of the first things the reader will notice of The Twilight of World Trotskyism – is how short it is at a mere 124 pages. This is an insult, given the history it purports to cover. Kelly’s central theme is that Trotskyist parties are too small to trouble global capitalism. Kelly also believes social revolutions are undesirable and impossible in today’s political climate. People who want change should forget about challenging poverty or social inequality or, god forbid, socialist revolution. Instead, according to Kelly, they should look to parties like Brazil’s Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party), which offers limited radical reform with the promise of changing working people’s lives.
As Guilherme Ferreira shows in his excellent article, the reality is slightly different. He writes, “The policies of the first year of Lula’s administration represent a continuation and deepening of the attacks on the working class and people with low incomes promoted during the 13 years (2003-2016) in which the PT was the preferred Party of the bourgeoisie in Brazil. In 2024, in addition to cuts in social spending due to the prospect of a worsening world economy and the implementation of the new fiscal regime, it is expected that social spending will be even further decreased with the proposed “zero deficit target” for the year’s budget that the PT managed to get Congress to approve in December. To meet this target, the budget includes a freeze of up to 56 billion reais (11 billion dollars), and there is a threat to end the constitutional limits on health and education.
What is emerging with increasing force is the certainty that the reactionary anti-working class policies of the new Lula government will pave the way for the strengthening of the extreme right and its possible return to power in the next elections. This political phenomenon was already seen in the election of the fascistic Bolsonaro amid the popular discrediting of the PT after it implemented capitalist adjustment programs and its leading role in vast corruption scandals. More recently, the same phenomenon has been seen in Argentina, where the fascistic Javier Milei used the enormous discrediting of Peronism to pose as a political alternative.”[2]
Chapter 1, ‘The Origins and Content of Trotskyism’, Kelly spends some time examining the “core elements’ of Trotskyism”. While he mentions every Pseudo Left organisation under the sun, he does not discuss the orthodox Trotskyist parties contained within the International Committee of the Fourth International. (ICFI). He makes no mention of its global publication, the World Socialist Website(wsws.org), which is the largest publication of its kind on the web. Kelly continuously uses the generic term Trotakyist without examining the history of various pseudo-left groups that use the term Trotskyist only as a cover for their opportunist politics. But it is clear that when he calls for Trotskyists to drop their adherence to Marxism, he is talking about the Orthodox Marxists inside the ICFI.
Chapter 2 ‘A Brief Account of the Four Main Centres of World Trotskyism: You would have thought that someone at Routledge would have told Kelly that it was not a good idea to try and explain the origins and history of the world Trotskyist movement using only four countries. But it seems that the editors at Routledge have given Kelly free rein to write any half-arse things that come into his head at any given moment. Kelly exhibits a shocking degree of academic laziness; his aversion to including in his supposed look at the origins of world Trotskyism, the orthodox Trotskyist on the ICFI, is akin to leaving Jesus out of the bible. Any honest account of the origins of world Trotskyism would have to at least look at and consider David North’s monumental contribution to the Fourth International Heritage We Defend[3]. The Heritage We Defend was first published in book form in 1988. Its origins lie in the political struggle waged by the ICFI and the Workers League, the predecessor of the Socialist Equality Party of the United States, from 1982-1986, to defend Trotskyism against the nationalist opportunism of the ICFI’s former British section, the Workers Revolutionary Party.
It was written as a polemic against Michael Banda, the former WRP General Secretary, and his document, “27 Reasons why the International Committee Should be Buried Forthwith and the Fourth International Built.” It establishes the continuity of the fight for orthodox Trotskyism in the political conflicts that arose inside the Fourth International in the 20th Century. Kelly’s hatred of orthodox Trotskyism is clear, and he deliberately ignores its history and program. And for good reason. In this respect, Kelly is not stupid enough to go up against the ICFI. He knows that the ICFI has a track record of dealing with and exposing Stalinists like him.
In Chapter 3, ‘The Current State of World Trotskyism’, In this chapter, Kelly exhibits the same light-mindedness and ignorance he showed in chapter two. He has no interest in the political differences between the orthodox Marxist parties within the ICFI and the various pseudo-left groups. Kelly is not interested in the programme but solely in membership and electoral results.
In chapter 4, ‘The Dynamics of World Trotskyism, ’ Kelly argues, and not very well, I might add, that the Trotskyist movement has not led major protests or revolutions in the Twentieth Century and has become an irrelevance’ for struggles today. He asks, ‘Why have Trotskyist groups repeatedly failed to build mass organisations, despite almost a century of organising effort in over 70 countries across six continents?[4]
Marxist writer David North writes, “Two points must be made. While sarcastically dismissing the failure of the Trotskyist movement to lead a socialist revolution, Kelly ignores the counter-revolutionary actions, frequently involving murderous violence, taken by the mass Stalinist and social democratic party and trade union organisations in alliance with the state to isolate and destroy the Trotskyist movement and defend the capitalist system. Kelly pretends the Trotskyist movement was conducting its revolutionary work in ideal laboratory conditions.
The second point, actually a question, is this: What are the great political successes achieved by those organisations and their leaders engaged in what Kelly calls “serious”, i.e., non-revolutionary politics? Mr. Kelly informs his readers that he was a member of the British Communist Party during the 1980s. What were the great and lasting achievements of this Party, which was implicated in every crime and betrayal carried out by the Stalinist regime in the Kremlin from the 1920s until the catastrophic dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991?”.[5]
Chapter 5, ‘Explaining the Marginality of World Trotskyism’, is much like previous chapters in that it does offer no real analysis. Instead, it has chapter headings like ‘Reforms are no longer possible; the choice is between ‘socialism or barbarism!’, ‘Party and electoral programs: We demand everything!’, ‘Parliamentary elections decide nothing’, ‘Lamentation replaces analysis’, ‘Ideological certitude, electoral delusion and millenarian fantasy’. Kelly believes that adherence to program and history is debilitating and doctrinaire. (page 80)
After Kelly’s book, one is left to ask: If the “Trotskyist movement has an unparalleled record of political failure”, why did Kelly and a major global publisher release two books on the subject? The professor has devoted excessive time and study to a movement and a man that he considers “irrelevant?”
As David North points “ Why have the two volumes of Kelly been published by Routledge, among the largest publishers in the world with annual revenues of between $50 and $100 million. Why does this powerful capitalist publishing house expend resources on publishing books about an irrelevant organisation? It should be recalled that in 2003 Routledge also published a biography of Leon Trotsky. I had the honour of exposing its author, Professor Ian Thatcher, as an intellectually unprincipled slanderer. Evidently, Routledge’s preoccupation with Trotsky indicates that it is by no means convinced of his “irrelevance.”
Now that we are approaching the midpoint of the 2020s have events tended to vindicate Kelly’s ridicule of the prognosis of the International Committee five years ago? What has been the predominant tendency in the economic, social and political structures of world capitalism since the start of the new decade? If Professor Kelly’s criticisms of Trotskyist “doctrinairism,” blind to the realities of the contemporary world, are correct, he would have to demonstrate, with appropriate empirical documentation, that the past four to five years have witnessed an organic strengthening of the world economy, a diminution of social instability—that is, a lessening of class conflict—and both a decline in global geopolitical tensions and growing vitality of bourgeois democratic institutions”.[6]
[1] Opening report to the Eighth Congress of the Socialist Equality Party (US)
A Trumpet of Sedition 