It is the purpose of this chapter to examine a number of post-war and contemporary anti-capitalist 'left' organisations to see to what extent they exhibit the tendencies of sectarianism.

The word sectarianism is often banded about on the political left, usually by one group about another. Despite the frequent use of the term, none of the groups or individuals using it, to my knowledge, have seriously bothered to analyse the phenomenon. Yet most groups, in their struggles against each other, find it impossible to resist denouncing other groups as sectarian. Typically, they can all see sectarianism in other groups, but rarely, if ever, in themselves.

Taking one group's word on another group is something of a problem, since their perceived need to score points and destroy or damage other 'left' political tendencies leads to exaggeration and often fabrication. Their views of other groups become so distorted that they are of little use to anyone wishing to distinguish the 'essence' from the projection. Similarly, the complete lack of reliable evidence from any other source makes any attempt to establish the actions of these groups fraught with distortion and prejudice. Accordingly, in this section, it is the intention to use only material which originates from the particular organisation under discussion. There is, however, a problem of extent. There are literally scores of such revolutionary anti-capitalist groupings scattered throughout the world claiming to be Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist or Maoist.

It is not the intention of this chapter to survey the whole spectrum of left groups in search of evidence of sectarianism. That is the task of a much larger work or series of works. Instead, I shall provide some indicators of the extent of the phenomenon by examining a cross section of those groups publishing materials within Britain. Many of them have satellite groups in other parts of the world or are themselves satellite groups, so the survey should suffice for an international audience. The method chosen, to assist brevity, is of a small case study of a particular group, the SLL/WRP, probably one of the most sectarian groups, to see the pattern, continuity and depth of sectarianism.

This will be followed by evidence, from a range of other groups, to indicate the breadth of sectarianism. This second body of evidence will be arranged according to those characteristics outlined in Chapter One. These two views of the problems should indicate how sectarianism functions within a single organisation, and how it visibly manifests itself in a series of others.

There is another problem:- one of balance. The object of part one of this work is to explore and examine the characteristics of sectarianism. These characteristics as we have seen in Chapter 1, are entirely negative. This means that where sectarianism is identified, the conclusions will be almost entirely negative. This is not to say that the organisations quoted, and more importantly many individuals belonging to them, have not conducted themselves in non-sectarian ways. Tens of thousands of sincere individuals have, in rejecting the capitalist system, moved towards revolutionary politics over the past four or five decades with no other desire than to create a better world. They joined this or that group, sometimes moving from one to another. Very few have stayed. They have retired disgusted or 'burned out'. During their stay they invariably tried to 'educate' themselves, often alone, often late at night. They learned about their own group from their own group and about other groups, also from their own group. Mostly they accepted the 'party line' - too often without question. Trusting the established leaders they have worked selflessly and often tirelessly. There are many such people, there are numerous good acts. Nonetheless, these positive actions have been overshadowed by the accumulated negative acts of others within their organisations. Sectarianism is so reactionary, such a pernicious menace, that it is able to corrode the positive attributes of individuals and negate their particular contributions to the struggle against capital. If in looking at these groups the balance sheet turns out devastatingly negative - then so be it! At least future - and perhaps present - generations of anti-capitalist and revolutionary activists will become aware of the extent and depth of the problems. And in case any current or ex-member of such a group is reading this chapter, if the sectarian cap doesn't fit them, then there is, of course, absolutely no intention that they should be forced to wear it. On the contrary, the author sincerely hopes that they will join in the effort to combat sectarianism in all its forms.

a) We will build the World Party.

In 1973 a small organisation called the Socialist Labour League (SLL) changed it's name and declared itself the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP). Both prior to, and subsequent to this declaration, the grouping claimed allegiance to Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International founded in 1938. In fact they claimed much more. The leadership of the SLL and the later WRP claimed to be the legitimate heirs and only 'correct' interpreters of Trotskyism. The leading figures of the SLL were also the leading figures in the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). In 1963 in the introduction to a Manifesto, and printed in the SLL's journal, Labour Review, are the following words:

"It is now 25 years since Trotsky and his comrades founded the Fourth International of revolutionary Marxists. That was in the aftermath of the defeats inflicted by Hitler's and Franco's fascists, and at the height of the Stalinist terror in Russia. Those defeats were prepared by the betrayals of the 'socialist' and 'communist' leaders of the labour movement. It was necessary above all to start on the path of solving this 'crisis of leadership'. Now, 25 years after, the solution of the crisis of leadership is still the main issue." (Labour Review. Vol. 7. No. 5.)

A serious problem had been identified. In fact this very point, a crisis of 'incorrect' leadership, had been raised by Trotsky in the ranks of the Left Opposition forty years earlier. Yet despite the problem having been identified for such a long time, it had still not been solved. The problem haunted the Trotskyist Left; in many ways it still does among those who remain in that particular anti-capitalist tradition. In the days of the Left Opposition, many workers were prepared to follow reformist leaders, who continued to advocate reforming the capitalist system bit by bit. Others looked to those communists who remained wedded to Stalinism - even after Stalin was dead! The latter did so in the conviction that Soviet Communists knew best, the former that wisdom resided in the Social Democrats or Labour leaders. Twenty five years after the founding of the Trotskyist Fourth International, the problem in the opinion of those revolutionaries who opposed Stalinism and reformism, was still how to organise a genuine revolutionary leadership. The task, still unfulfilled, was to create a substantial anti-capitalist vanguard. A vanguard which would build up a close relationship with the working class so that in the event of a revolutionary upheaval, the workers would trust these revolutionaries to guide their struggles toward something they called socialism. In the summer of 1963, when they published the statement quoted above, the SLL were recognising that a further quarter of a century of effort had elapsed, and still little or no progress had been made. However, this latter manifesto, written in a mood of optimism, also confidently made the following prediction:

"We say this is a Trotskyist epoch not because some irreversible process makes it so but because out of firm, principled, intervention in the struggles of the working class we will build a world party."

The authors were determined - by an effort of will - to make the epoch in which they lived, a Trotskyist epoch. They intended to do this by firm, principled interventions in the struggles of the working class. What kind of firm principles and interventions were intended, the manifesto did not go on to describe. Yet the aims and objectives are quite clear. Out of these undeclared firm principled interventions, the Socialist Labour League, would build a World Party. Many members believed this and were taken in by such confident predictions. Only a few years later (1966), however, an incident occurred which cast a light on these firm principles, as they applied to struggles within their own internationalist section. This incident also reveals certain characteristics of sectarianism. After a number of urgent letters of appeal by the National Secretary of the SLL during March 1966, (e.g. "we want you here" - "you and he must attend"), North American representatives attended an International Conference in London. The conference was mainly organised by leading members of the SLL. At the conference there were disagreements between at least one of the American representatives and members of the SLL. During the Conference, one of the American representatives made a request to miss a session of the conference on the grounds that a combination of illness and an all-night writing session had left him needing some sleep that afternoon. The National Secretary of the SLL (the same one who had urged the Americans' attendance) describes the next development.

"As soon as he returned to the evening session....he was asked to apologise to the congress for not having attended the session....He refused to apologise and the congress unanimously,.....decided he should leave.....We knew from the beginning the anti-internationalist attitude of this man and his tendency.....We had to bring him to the Congress...in order to reveal the nature of these tendencies."

The incident quickly flared up and soon became even more heated and nasty. Allegations of 'petty-bourgeois' and 'reactionary' were flung around. No question of a lack of firmness in intervention here. True, the principles are not made clear and the needs of the working class seem to have vanished into the background, but firmness is undoubtedly there. The extracts from the SLL's Secretary quoted above show clearly that the incident was something of a 'set-up', a deliberate ploy. Have we not just a hint of the desire for a mini-show trial here?. The letters urging the attendance of this representative, the sessions of the Congress, the minds and energies of the delegates and the 'leaders', were all directed to publicly exposing and rebuking this member of a satellite revolutionary organisation, from a different country. A number of questions occur.

If he and his organisation were so bad, why invite them in the first place? If their ideas were so poor, why the decision to attack this individual for having a nap? If they knew his attitude from the beginning, why bog down an important Congress with the repeated demand for an apology? After failing to get the apology, why did the congress decide - unanimously - to exclude him simply for his lack of manners, rather than his politics? How does this whole incident help to build the world party and help the working class? We are not told.

The answer is that it doesn't. The unapologetic American representative was eventually expelled for his failure to grovel to the leadership of the SLL and ICFI. The incident has nothing to do with the needs and interests of the working and oppressed masses, but it has a lot to do with internal squabbles. It was nothing more than a sectarian verbal wrestling match. Repeated attempts were being made to pin someone down and force a submission. It gives a glimpse of the characteristic of conducting life and death feuds with each other, which was identified by Engels. The incident also identifies how quickly trivial issues, such as taking a nap, can be suddenly raised to the level of principle.

At first, the entire incident makes no real sense. A clue may be, in the fact that the incident led to the removal of a potential rival. A further clue could be in the fact that the SLL, at that time, desired to expand its influence in America and elsewhere, in order to gain resources and recruits. For the sectarian, the energy and time invested for such returns may be well worth it. As we have learned, what matters to the sectarian is not the state of the working class movement as a whole, its level of understanding and its practical activity, but the needs of the particular sect itself, which always and at all times MUST predominate. Indeed, as we saw, sectarians go on to demand that the class struggle as a whole subordinate itself to their particular group. This flows from a logic in which they see themselves as superior. And almost 100 years after Marx, the SLL 5th Conference resolution, in section 4, gives an unashamed reason for such superiority. For in discussing the class struggle, they claimed:

" We are part of that struggle, the most important part because of Marxist consciousness. (and).... ...Because our Marxist theory is an accurate guide to the needs of the class, we are able to lead workers into struggles which educate them very quickly." (Emphasis added RR)

Marx considered that in the class struggle every step of real movement of the workers was more important than dozens of socialist programmes. Yet the SLL reversed that and made their consciousness and theory, rendered tangible in their programmes, the most important part of the class struggle. What distinguished the SLL leadership from the working class in its own eyes was its Marxist consciousness. It is a distinction of which they were proud, a distinction of which they boasted, one which they never tired of declaring and asserting, particularly against the rival claims of other left groups. Does this arrogant declaration not bear a remarkable similarity to Stalin's sectarian boast of being 'made of special stuff'? The SLL's (and WRP's) Marxist consciousness, was a point of extreme importance and honour. So much store is put by this shibboleth of Marxist consciousness that in 1963 the SLL could openly and arrogantly profess themselves to be the most important part of the class struggle.

This was a claim that Marx during his lifetime never made for himself, a claim which moreover is in direct opposition and contradiction to his views on the working class and its own self-activity. It was also a claim which elevated the power of ideas to the most important part of the real practical struggle, another reversal of Marx. In fact as we shall see later, the SLL was not on its own in this claim of Marxist purity and clarity, but by 1963 this claim and the certainty which attended it, had become its own particular distinguishing mark. Internally this Marxist 'clarity' was personified and generated by a few leaders.

There was at that time a complete division of labour between those who produced the programmes, resolutions and documents, and those who sold the paper and agitated in their unions. Therefore when the SLL declared it was the most important part of the class struggle, it was in effect saying that one or two leaders of the SLL were the most important part of that struggle. Let us be more precise. They were in fact implying that Gerry Healy, Cliff Slaughter and Mike Banda, the leadership of the SLL, were the most important part of the class struggle. Indeed they acted as if they were! These elect few had by 1963, donned the mantle of supreme pontiffs, in relationship to the rest of toiling humanity, and accordingly assumed (and claimed) a kind of papal infallibility in terms of Marxist theory. The rest of the SLL members either accepted this theoretical hegemony, resisted it, or turned their backs upon it. For a whole period, loyal SLL members were persuaded to accept that savage rebukes and exposures, such as the one noted above, were a necessary part of building of the world party of revolution. Such ritual exposures were a sacred 'rite' of the revolutionary 'elect' of the infant Socialist Labour League. The membership looked forward to the revolution, which, they were reliably informed by their leaders, was always just around the corner, and to the day their ranks would be transformed from a group to a party.

The change of name in 1973, from the SLL to the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) heralding a proposed transformation from group to party did not, however, engender a change in its sectarian principles or practice. The organisation was and continued to be dominated by the same leaders and remained consistently elitist and sectarian. Its central concerns remained the same. Since those words of optimistic party building were penned in 1963 a further two decades of such sectarian activities had passed before the next selected incident. If we take them at their own boastful words, the International Committee of the Fourth International and the WRP should at least be well on it's way to building the world party they had frequently promised. As we read on, we should bear in mind that this group claimed to be accurately guided by their Marxist theory, so even if they had not yet quite arrived where they had predicted, they should not be far off. However, by 1985, another twenty-two years had passed and things were still not going too well. In a statement by the political committee of the WRP we read:

"A minority of Political Committee members, led by M. Banda (General Secretary), delivered the biggest body blow to Trotskyism and the international working class since Pablo destroyed the majority of the world Trotskyist movement after the second world war." (Marxist Review Vol 1 Issue 1. p 10)

Alas, the 'World Party' had received another set back. The accuracy of their Marxist theory didn't seem to be getting them far. Note too, that in this quote, the reader is being informed, that the two biggest body blows to the international working class since the Second World War, had been administered by a small minority (Banda et al) in the first case, and amazingly, an individual (Pablo), in the second. The reader is being informed that a single individual, or a small minority in the second case, could administer a sufficient body blow to the international working class to destroy it. How reassuring this must be to the Capitalist oppressors! This statement exhibits a revealing perception of the importance attached, by this group, to certain 'individuals' in relationship to the overall needs and interests of the millions making up the international working class.

As we have noted earlier, a group of would be 'leaders' of the world working class, are perhaps bound to get this relationship somewhat out of proportion. However, what is equally clear from the above mentioned statement is that the leaders, who had collaborated for at least 25 years, had suddenly started to fall out. Mr Banda, we are informed elsewhere, together with 150 ex-members, suspended members, and people who had never been members, descended on the Party centre. During the course of the following 12 hour meeting (how's that for stamina!), in which threats were exchanged and intimidation offered, the 'Banda group' announced the expulsion of their former comrade Gerry Healy and imposed their own party line. In a further statement from the expelled group, former friends were now lumped in along with all 'revisionist agencies of imperialism' and subsequently referred to as "...the renegades of the Banda-Slaughter-North Cliques." From comrade to renegade in an amazingly rapid transformation. The aims of these renegades, we read in the same statement was;

"...to politically smash the Workers Revolutionary Party in Britain which in it's long revolutionary history has built a party of between 5,000 and 6,000 members. In this, they have the active support of the Banda brothers as well as rump clique of petty bourgeois professional workers." (Marxist Review Vol 1 Issue 1 page 13.)

Two or three people, having worked for 25 years to build up this organisation are suddenly bent on smashing it? Can we believe this? It is more likely that they were bent on taking it over, but this action, to the sectarian egotist, amounts to the same thing. We are told that they have disagreed on points of policy. The former comrades have questioned some long term sexual oppression by Gerry Heally and have taken some allegedly unconstitutional action. Are we to assume they had gone mad? Did they perhaps have a serious reason? Of course not! How could they! On the contrary we are informed, that it is because the crisis of capitalism and imperialism has become so great, that these 'renegades' couldn't stand the strain, or face their revolutionary responsibilities any more. They had just cracked up! However, instead of running for cover or simply 'dropping out', as many before them, they decided instead to become active agents of Imperialism. It's as simple and obvious to the sectarian mind as that!

It is impossible to read the many pages of attack and counter attack, between the two sides without being forcibly struck, and reminded of the point made by Trotsky of the extreme bitterness and the poisoned atmosphere that had been identified within the ranks of the Left Opposition. Yet such bitterness and poison had obviously lived on in those who openly professed to follow in the Left Opposition's footsteps. Trivialities were again elevated to the level of principle; humanist principle's were discarded as sexual trivialities for long periods of time before, disguised as personal allegations, they were dragged out for a public airing.

Some of the incidents which were cause for bitter complaint dated back over 20 years. Why had these incidents, (if they had happened) been kept in the closet all this time? What else was kept secret? Was the comradely collaboration of more than 25 years at the expense of keeping quiet about serious questions of principle and morality? Conversely, If the incidents hadn't happened, why were they being invented? And why at this particular time? Particularly, when we were informed in the same journal that at that very moment:

"The conditions are entirely ripe for the organisation of the general strike to bring down the Thatcher regime, smash the capitalist state and go forward to the establishment of a Workers Revolutionary Government." (Marxist Review Vol. 1 Issue 2. page 4)

The closeness of the title of this new revolutionary government to the name of the Workers Revolutionary Party is interesting, and we can be sure, not entirely accidental. Were they perhaps counting on being swept to power? Let us for a moment take them at their word. The conditions were entirely ripe and a revolution in the offing. In such conditions, it is remarkable to note, that these pontiffs of the World Party of revolution, guided as they were by their Marxist and consciousness, couldn't choke back their frustration and anger with each other long enough to take advantage of the 'ripe' situation they had just diagnosed, especially when it offered the realisation of a Workers Revolutionary Government! If that seems bad from the standpoint of the members of the WRP, think of the problem from the standpoint of the poor workers! Just when they were waiting for the call from the WRP, to commence a general strike to smash the capitalist system, the leaders, those who had defined themselves as the most important part of the class struggle, chose to have a profound disagreement. Just as they declared that the working class were poised to smash the Thatcher government, the World Party of Revolution - the workers only salvation - decided in its Marxist wisdom to self-destruct!

We are entitled to ask; 'What on earth was going on?' Presumably the 'renegades' (now classified as agents of imperialism) would be trying to stop the 'real' leaders from organising the general strike and smashing the capitalist state. Faced with what they considered was a revolutionary situation, and of course armed with their Marxist theory, the few remaining who thought themselves the 'true' elements of the Workers Revolutionary Party, would clearly have as a priority, a quick regrouping and then working with the working classes, toward the establishment of their anticipated workers revolutionary government. Yes? Unfortunately no! Their resolution, written with all their accumulated Marxist wisdom, tells us that the urgent tasks in this politically 'ripe' situation were as follows;

"Every member of the Workers Revolutionary Party must participate fully in analysing the split with the Banda Slaughter clique. This is the highest point of the Party's theory and practice and will form the basis of an energetic recruitment campaign and cadre training in the dialectical materialist method." (ibid.)

There we have it! The highest point of this revolutionary party's theory and practice will not be the overthrow of Thatcherism, nor the smashing of the Capitalist State - even when they have declared the conditions entirely ripe. Not even the practical achievement of a Workers Revolutionary Government qualifies for such an exalted position. The highest point will come from an analysis of the struggle between the warring leaders. Every member of the WRP must, therefore, suspend or slacken practical activity and study the dialectics of the latest inner party sectarian squabble! If that wasn't a prime example of subordinating the needs of the workers movement to the needs of a small sect, it would be hard to find a better one. Of course in 1985 the establishment of a 'Workers Revolutionary Government' was only a fantasy in someone's overactive mind, and the only thing 'ripe' was the stench of sectarian rottenness and corruption. Trotsky's words "the fundamentally improper and unhealthy regime within the party." come eerily to mind. They were of course expressed by Trotsky in 1923, with regard to the Bolsheviks at that point in time, but how aptly they describe the S.L.L and W.R.P. regime of the 1960's - 1980's. In later debriefings the inner circle of Healy's ex-supporters describe the 'atmosphere' of suspicion and fear which surrounded them in their day to day activity in the SLL/WRP.

The WRP member who went public with the accusations of sexual misconduct immediately went into hiding for fear of her safety. Although separated by time and geography, does this Healyite party regime not seem familiar to that of Stalin, albeit on a much smaller scale? I suggest there is such a remarkable similarity despite geographical separation and historical distance, precisely because they in fact share the same characteristics; the characteristics of sectarianism. Those with knowledge of the SLL/WRP (particularly those in its middle to higher ranks) who remain unconvinced that Stalinism was rampant sectarianism should ask themselves what the situation would have been if Gerry Healy and the WRP had wielded state power? Now there's a thought to make you shudder!

However, the three points, already considered, are worth noting again in summing up so far. The first is in relationship to that made by Engels concerning party groupings which carry on 'life and death feuds with one another'. The second point is the one already noted which Trotsky indicated, concerning the "inner life of groups being characterised by extreme bitterness and 'poisoned atmosphere', a situation which repelled serious workers despite their `sympathy for the ideas'. The third point is again made by Trotsky and concerns the sectarian characteristic of a 'narrow homogeneous group, bound internally by deep and unshakeable conviction, despite the contradiction between this conviction and historical development'. It has not been too difficult to draw the conclusion that the SLL/WRP was deeply sectarian for a considerable if not the whole of its existence. Yet another example follows in the same document. It flows out of an attempt to divert attention away from the previously noted issue of alleged sexual morality:

"Only petty bourgeois Philistines can believe that the biggest and deepest split in the history of Trotskyism took place, as the slanders claim over questions of abstract `morality', anti-Communist allegations of `physical abuse', or because David North's non-existent honour was hurt. The split involves the very philosophical, political and organisational FOUNDATIONS of Marxism, represented since 1953 only by the ICFI, the nucleus of the World Party of Socialist Revolution." M/R Vol. 1 Issue 1 p 34)

Note the `questions of abstract morality' were in fact questions of alleged 'concrete acts' (27 of them in all) of using one's position as a leader to obtain sexual favours from female members of the group. [Behaviour, which elsewhere in the workers' movement, might be classified under the general heading of sexual harassment.] Note also, that questioning sexual harassment and other forms of physical abuse are suddenly declared anti-Communist. A further point arises here! Are we to suppose that these erstwhile defenders of the 'foundations' of Marxism support communist forms of sexual harassment and physical abuse; forms that were frequently resorted to under Stalinism? However, to head off such criticism, we are informed that only petty bourgeois Philistines could think the split was about sexual morality. The split, we are informed, involves not questions of morality, or physical abuse, but the very philosophical, political and organisational `foundations' of Marxism, which since 1953 had been represented ONLY by the ICFI. What is at stake, according to this response, is not the wrongs of alleged sexual harassment, but the future of the foundations of Marxism and the struggle against capitalism. Of course, by ICFI is meant (as we have previously noted) the leaders of the ICFI. It can be seen from this that the logic of such leaders is beautifully simple. It works like this. The workers need the theory of Marxism to conquer power. Only the leaders of the ICFI have really represented Marxism for the last three decades. Therefore, the workers need the leaders of the ICFI despite their bitterness, poison, capriciousness and sexual harassment. Yes indeed! They need them like a hole in the head! No proof is offered to substantiate their assertions of moral correctness, or Marxist infallibility, for none is needed. Only 'petty bourgeois Philistines' would consider questioning any other reasons for the split. So if you question it - you must be a petty-bourgeois Philistine! Neat isn't it? A simple logical assertion. Independently minded workers are supposed to be simply satisfied with these self-serving, partisan and sectarian reassurances.

In the context of discussing SLL/WRP sectarianism, there is a point which has already been made, but needs to be stressed, with regard to this previous quote. It is the one identified earlier, concerning the 'deep unshakeable conviction' of sectarians, a conviction which is unshakeable, 'despite the contradictions between this conviction and historical development'. Note in this last extract, the assertion that the very foundations of Marxism have been "...represented since 1953 only by the ICFI, the nucleus of the World Party of Socialist Revolution.". We have already read the earlier promise of the leaders of the SLL in 1953 to build a world party by firm, principled independent intervention in the struggles of the working class. We witnessed them in their own words being firm and principled with people they disagreed with.

The reality 32 years later, is that of disintegration and collapse. There are 'insider' suggestions that principled firmness has become redefined as brutality and serious questions in regard to matters of principle. Further than that, in their own words, it took only a tiny handful of former colleagues with what they bitterly claim were an assorted 'rag-bag' of 150 people', to deliver a tremendous body blow to an organisation which they also claimed to consist of 5,000 to 6,000. Despite all these failures in their own perspectives and activities, they remained convinced of their correctness and that they were the 'true' leaders of the anti-capitalist struggle. A final example of this unshakeable 'religious' type conviction which also serves to illustrate the longevity of the SLL/WRP leader's messianic sectarian fervour, and that the previous example was no isolated instance, is again taken from the earlier period of the 1950's. We read in an open letter:

"But the factor that sustains cadres under the most difficult circumstances is the burning conviction of the theoretical correctness of our movement, the knowledge that they are the living means for advancing the historic mission of the working class, the understanding that to one degree or another the fate of humanity depends on what they do..." (Open letter to the Socialist Workers Party, November 16, 1953.)

They (the 'elect' few) considered themselves, in 1953, to be the 'living means for advancing the historic mission of the working class'. They still did in 1985. What is more, in their own words - the fate of humanity depended upon what they did. After we have followed just a few of their sectarian antics, I think we are allowed a smile. A burning conviction of their theoretical correctness! Does this is not represent an unshakeable belief in their own infallibility, despite the contradiction between that conviction and their actual historical development?

During the late 1980's the WRP all but disappeared but, unfortunately, its sectarian residue did not. As late as 1989 one small element of it had reformed as 'The Marxist Party' and were again issuing Congress and World Congress resolutions on a grand scale. One such resolution marked their 10th Congress and contained a list of 153 points divided into four sections. Some of the points were as short as one sentence, others comprised of a page or more. The author of the introduction to the perspectives resolution, warming to his or her task, twice indicates that Point 38 (page 284) is worth further consideration. It is hard to disagree. Here's the first part of point 38. It gives something of the flavour of this reconstituted sectarian group.

"Now, the measure of development is the coincidence of the world economic and political crisis with the political revolution in the Soviet Union. 'In Measure, to put it abstractly, Quality and Quantity are united.'(Lenin, Vol 38 C/W page 120). Where quality and quantity are united in equal strength, there is an invariance between them. But such an invariance (limit) signifies the accelerated tempo of the world revolution, in which days, or even hours, can be decisive. Absolutely decisive therefore, is the struggle against bourgeois ideology. The coincidence of the world economic and political crisis of imperialism with the political revolution in the USSR and China is the content of the leap in the global revolutionary consciousness of the world working class - the leap to social revolution. Those who refuse to grasp the 'in itself' of this leap, as a process, manifest the redoubled weight of bourgeois, emanating both from the crisis ridden bourgeoisie and the disintegrating Stalinist bureaucracy."

We might expect in a perspective's resolution, (i.e. something to clarify and guide member's thoughts and action) that the issues would be made clear. Does this seem clear! We even have a quotation thrown in to help us. True the quote from Lenin is just one line, taken completely out of context, from a series of notes and observations by Lenin on Hegel's philosophical work - Logic! Presumably this quote from Lenin is supposed to help us wrestle with the apparently key concept of 'invariance' which follows later in the text. In fact the words quoted are not Lenin's at all but Hegel's. They do appear in Volume 38 of Lenin's collected works, but contained within quotation marks to make this absolutely clear.

Actually Lenin and Hegel, at that point were concerned with 'being' and 'essence' and not invariance - so quite what the relevance of this extremely short and out of context quotation is supposed to be is far from clear. There is just a chance, however, that it is there to impress the reader with the knowledge and scholarship of the author/s of the perspectives resolution. After all, if these authors have got as far as Volume 38 of Lenin's works and also understand the relevance of the quote - they must be very clever indeed! No doubt they must be brimful of Marxist clarity. The reader is next treated to some 'absolutely decisive' words on the nature of the struggle against bourgeois ideology (who could argue with that?) and then comes the phrase I particularly like. It is; "...the leap in the global revolutionary consciousness of the world working class..". We are presented here with three abstractions. First, 'the leap', second, 'the global revolutionary consciousness' and third, 'the world working class'. In terms of Trotsky's remark about sectarian's operating with abstractions and logical deductions - we have here an example par excellence. The whole paragraph is an example of unparalleled nonsense, unsuccessfully masquerading as Marxist scholarship. Go on, enjoy yourself - read it again!

Yet its purpose is serious. We are supposed to be inspired. Having been impressed by the scholarship, hypnotised by 'invariance', dazzled by the 'accelerated tempo', astonished by the 'leap' and stunned by the coincidence of 'crisis' - the reader is not left long to ponder his or her own inadequacy. Such readers, and presumably party members, and in particular workers looking for leadership and direction, can only surrender in mind-boggling submission to the intellectual superiority of the authors of this perspective's resolution. Or, on the other hand, if they have not had their critical faculties dulled by misplaced loyalty, they could decide that it's all utter crap. The only other conclusion is that the authors apparently see everything and know everything, but have enormous difficulty expressing it clearly. After all we have considered, should we trust they understand the confused drivel they have written? I think not! We are much safer in considering it just a load of pretentious bullshit!

Meanwhile readers are informed, in no uncertain terms, that those who 'refuse', to grasp the 'in itselfness' (another Hegelian construct) of this process, are doomed. Other more critical responses are ruled out. In case the reader is in doubt, the implications of other responses, are made crystal clear. At last something is! If we 'refuse' to accept this concoction of abstractions we are declared stubborn bourgeois apologists. By now we know what to expect if we fall into this category. In case the reader had forgotten, then he or she had already been warned. For thirty four points earlier, on page 275, the really dedicated (who else would plough through this lot!) cannot have failed to notice that such 'sceptical trends', will be struggled against. How? In another gem of abstract logical obscurity it is announced that this will be done by ".. combating and overcoming every tendency which rejects the immediacy of these objective laws..etc" The Marxist Party reveals in these 10th Congress perspectives the classic symptoms of sectarianism, undiluted by time or by experience.

It continues in the epic tradition of the SLL, (whether or not this particular author was a previous member) and the WRP. Proud of its differences with others, utterly convinced of its own correctness, dedicated to combating and overcoming other tendencies, boastful and arrogant and in general satisfied with abstractions and logical deductions, they remained trapped within their own narrow horizons and self- destructive sectarian habits.

b) Away with all pests! Our force is irresistible!

An examination of the previous selection of texts from the SLL/WRP/MP, has revealed that its reputation for sectarianism, was well earned. The incidents chosen are not the most 'bizarre' nor the most extremely brutal on record. Sadly, there are many more. Countless other texts and incidents are certainly available, for those interested. Yet these few have been sufficient to provide evidence of a deep rooted sectarianism, stretching across all ten characteristics outlined by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Of course, it isn't necessary for groups to exhibit all the characteristics of sectarianism all of the time to be considered sectarian. Indeed, it would be unusual to find other examples as extreme and as completely sectarian as the SLL/WRP and its subsequent residue was. Although, it must be said, there are a few that come very close. This fact has allowed many groups on the left to avoid taking their own sectarianism seriously, for in contrast to the SLL and WRP, they may have seemed to themselves, little islands of sanity. However, this does not mean that sectarianism does not exist, or that it isn't a serious problem within most, if not all the 'vanguard' groups on the left. For sectarianism, in all its manifestations, bizarre and subtle, is to the struggle for unity, what cancer is to the human body. It often starts off small - it can even lie dormant for a time - but it can also grow rapidly. As with cancer, when it is in its early stages, it is hard to identify, but easy to cure. Later, when it is easy to identify, it is often too late. At this later stage it is difficult to treat, let alone cure.

In the interests of brevity and variety, the remainder of this chapter will present selections of text which correspond with the sectarian characteristics outlined in Chapter One. Before doing so it is worth noting a general point. In the UK alone there are many revolutionary groupings which claim to be following in the footsteps of Marx, Engels and Lenin. There are also numerous groups which in addition to these claim also to follow in the footsteps of Trotsky. Some claim a direct political descendancy from all four. Yet even where they claim a common heritage, they will not be part of the same organisation. Practically all of them claim that the anti-capitalist struggle of the working classes needs a single revolutionary leadership to lead it - and each group considers they are the one. The question of leadership is often posed as a life and death issue, facing the working class. Either socialism with a correct revolutionary leadership, or capitalist barbarism and war, without it. Yet these groups will not unite to form the leadership which they claim is necessary. Most of them instead, claim they themselves will become that leadership in a competitive struggle against other rival groups. Many go beyond that and claim to already be the true and correct leadership. It is just that the rest of us don't realise it yet. As stated, a large number of them, have for all practical purposes, the same programme and policies, and ostensibly the same end in mind. They all call upon the working and oppressed classes to unite to overthrow capitalism, yet they will not unite themselves. Something stronger than the needs of the working class, for a united leadership, keeps them apart from each other. Despite the similarities between their various programmes small differences do exist. If their various programmes are examined in detail then these small differences can be identified. It is these which keep them apart. In order to justify this separation such small and often abstract distinctions have to be elevated to the status of 'principled' differences, in order to justify separateness.

Other groups are more reticent and so the differences have to be 'discovered' or uncovered. Nonetheless all these various differences, these shibboleths, are what prevent them from uniting. The extensive areas of similarity and agreement between these groups are seen by them to be insufficient to allow unity. In this way the second characteristic of sectarianism, becomes apparent. It is not what they have in common with each other, which is important to these groups, it is what distinguishes them from each other and the working and oppressed people. If we were able to find the two groups which are the most identical in every respect and put them together for a day or two they will invariably find differences, or they will invent them. In actual fact we don't have to carry out such an exercise, for the groups periodically do it themselves.

After a considerable time, having failed to recruit the hoped for numbers, some groups will attempt to enlarge their influence by holding unity talks. They will look around for another group which is closest to them in its thinking and opinions and begin to negotiate. Regroupment may be the description they give to the process, but egotistical self-expansion is the real name of the game. Occasionally two groups will actually meet together and then join together, but usually not for long. Sectarian manoeuvring for influence within the new organisation will commence as soon as is practicable and then a split will be engineered. Important differences will either be discovered or created. This is because the 'men of influence' will compete for leadership of the new organisation. This competition will bring out the bitterness and poison, within a shorter or longer time trivialities will be elevated to the level of principles and then work towards a split will commence, for the leaders of such groups are usually well versed in such activities, and like to excel and to be seen to excel, in such polemics.

The examples of sectarianism provided below are frequently only the tip of an iceberg of sectarianism. The true extent of the sectarian practice of a group can be discovered only from within an organisation and then only after a lengthy acquaintance with their inner regime. Some sectarian groups are more sensitive to their own sectarianism. For these reasons it is not often on display. In such cases, the complete range of sectarian characteristics lives within internal documents and inner group discussions, and, thus of course, does not always appear in public. The extracts in the following section are not referenced in the usual way, for they are drawn mainly from group newspapers, periodicals, leaflets and internal bulletins. Nevertheless, they are real and not inventions. Their importance is only in providing examples of the type and scope of the visible displays of sectarianism. Readers can confirm the reality of the phenomenon from their direct past experience, or the current reading of the publications of the various groups.

* Having the 'correct solution' or remedy (panacea), for the problems facing the working class.

This characteristic of sectarianism is most often implicit in the existence of the group rather than explicit in its published materials. That is to say, their very existence as an independent group and not part of another, means they consider only they have the correct solutions, or are capable of producing them, when needed. Occasionally these appear in 'What we stand for' boxes in their journals. Often however, their so-called correct solutions are paraded visibly in front of the working class, in the midst of their struggles. They are more often than not prefixed with the word must. Thus we can read;

"Workers must organise a political rebellion."

The International Communist Party, presented this supposed solution to the problems of redundancies and unemployment faced by working people in the autumn of 1992. The solutions were presented on a sheet included in the group's newspaper sold in various town centres. Note that the solution is to organise a political rebellion, whatever that might be. In order to further a political rebellion this little group declared, further on, that rank and file meetings must be organised to discuss and co-ordinate a fighting response to the jobs massacre. And from these rank and file discussions,

"Rank and File Committees must be elected to immediately begin preparations for a general strike."

The International Communist Party, in this slogan, doesn't just urge workers to have rank and file meetings, - they say they must! Not only that, these meetings must not decide for themselves what is necessary. Presumably the rank and file may make a 'wrong decision'! Instead, the correct solution is provided for them. The solution is to prepare immediately for a general strike. Let us, for a moment, examine the logic of this supposedly 'correct' solution. No instances of meetings of workers with such preparations in mind were provided, presumably because there were none at the time of writing. This small band of sectarians urged working people to start a revolution (what else could be meant by political rebellion?), or at least a crucial stage in a revolutionary development - the General Strike! They were to be spurred on, not by other workers, but by a small group which they may have never heard of before and of whom they knew nothing at all. At the time when this small sect issued this 'solution', it was in no position to help large groups of workers who took such a slogan seriously. Further, there was no evidence around that such thoughts were on many workers' minds. Another consideration was that in Britain there had been no moves toward a general strike since the period of the Triple Alliance of 1919 - 1921 and the actual failed General Strike of 1926! Despite these severe problems, this proposed solution points in only one logical direction. The workers are urged to begin preparations to take on the might of the Capitalist State - by themselves - and simply on the instructions or advice of this group. This solution, which readers of the leaflet were told workers must follow was a fantasy merely conjured up for sectarian posturing. It was an illogical and abstract formula, plucked from some previous historical struggles and presented as if there was no problem of relevance or practicality.

But the solution sounded revolutionary and although it was formulated as if it were addressed to all workers, in actual fact it was presented to a small audience of readers of this particular group's paper. The best that can be said is that these sectarian 'anti-capitalists' must have 'hoped' - (they must have known it stood little or no chance of being realised) - that their correct solution would be taken up simultaneously by all workers, or at least a large majority. A fairly faint hope since again there is no history of workers taking up the solutions offered to them by such sectarian groups. Furthermore, this particular group hadn't even the means to deliver this proposed solution to all the factories and workplaces in even a small district, so they could not be sure it would even be widely discussed, let alone acted upon. In actual fact this small circulation paper was on sale in town centre's and apparently not at factory gates.

The call for a general strike is one of the most used (perhaps abused would be more appropriate) slogans by the so-called revolutionary left, in the vain hope that some day some workers will actually follow such advice. Simply plucking such a slogan out of thin air in the hope that it will work, is sheer nonsense; but it does sound radical. And, of course, sounding extremely radical is vital to the self image of a small sect. It is certainly more important than appearing mundane. From the standpoint of the anti-capitalist struggle producing this fantastic solution in the autumn of 1992 was a fourfold folly.

First it trivialised the preparation necessary for a general strike of the working classes Second, it could, in some circumstances, have mislead numbers of anti-capitalists and workers into thinking a general strike was possible and easy. Third, if the solution had been taken up in a few factories, then the workers in these few factories could have been left isolated and vulnerable. Fourth, if it had spread then the chances are that it would have been defeated, for it is fairly obvious that a general strike would require, not only a great deal of preparation, but the existence of a profound social and political crisis for all classes and a massive turnout. At the time there was no such crisis, just some moderate difficulties for the ruling Conservative politicians. In general the possibility of a general strike only arises within the context of a large-scale anti-capitalist movement, among large numbers of working people and during a crisis situation. However, the main point in this section is to note that at each stage of the class struggle, sectarian groups always think they have the 'correct' solution, which the workers have only to follow. Here is another group campaigning after a day of action in support of the miners efforts to keep open 31 threatened pits in 1993.

" After the day of action: Prepare for a general Strike."

Here we have another call for preparations for a general strike, made by yet another small organisation. So eager was this group for action that it could not even wait for the results of the day of action before making this call - a call for the working class to take on the state. Predictably, in the circumstances of previous defeats, the day of action had varying responses, but did not attract the amount of support needed for even a small sustained action against the pit-closures, let alone the immediate preparation of a general strike to take on the government. Despite it being almost identical to the solution provided by the earlier group, there was no co-ordination between the two groups. Although calling for united action among all workers and trade unionists, this latter group also announced that this could be achieved only if working people followed their particular party, and although they added that "all communists should be organised into a single party", they of course, meant their party. This because, as with all sectarians, they thought their party was the only one capable of producing all the correct answers.

* Its reason for existence are features which distinguish it from the working class movement.

Most of the groups which claim allegiance to Marx and Lenin already have a clear distinguishing feature built into their reason for existence. Their assumed possession of this 'science' of revolution and revolutionary science, means that they think they can see and understand the world much better than the working and oppressed classes they seek to lead. They consider they know better how to outwit the capitalists, as well as saving the working class from making critical mistakes. Their supposed knowledge of history, dialectics and politics means they think they can actually guide and lead the working and oppressed masses. This is why frequent assertions are made along the lines that without their group the working class will be condemned to thrash around blindly and to get nowhere in terms of overthrowing the capitalist system. In this view of the anti-capitalist revolution there will clearly be leaders and led. The working class will merely provide the strength and numbers to overthrow capital. The sectarian leaders will point out the best direction, the correct timing and the most effective means. Will they Indeed! We have seen how good they are at that.

They have a military model of organisation in mind. Generals (Central Committee members) sit and decide the strategy, other 'field officers' (regional/national organisers, newspaper editors etc.) pass on the instructions, local field commanders, (Branch Officers etc.) consider how to effect the policies among the working class in their area. Since it is a class war which is involved, this may not seem a problematic structure. However, from the standpoint of the working class, such ideas do leave it in the position of cannon fodder sent into action, or withdrawn from it, not by their own deliberations but by decision of the sectarian leaders. This does not bode well for the self-activity of the working class. At the same time it flies in the face of the opinion of Marx and Engels with regard to workers self-activity. But, from the standpoint of the revolutionary sect, such a division of labour is necessary for the workers own good. The need for such an arrangement is often spelt out fairly clearly. Here is an example which at the same time establishes, in the sectarian mind, the essential differences between revolutionaries and workers.

"Only such a leadership can enable the proletariat to break from the fetters imposed upon it by capitalist society and reformist and Stalinist mis-leaders, and undertake the struggle for its own liberation and that of all victims of the capitalist social order." (IMG Draft Constitution 1978)

In other words, without such leadership as provided by the International Marxist Group, the working and oppressed classes can only go round in circles and stay within the fetters imposed by capitalist society. From this sectarian viewpoint, it is not unity against capital that is the problem for working people, or an economic collapse of the capitalist system, but the lack of a leadership equipped with the most advanced theory. According to this view, if the working class and anti-capitalist forces achieved unity in the midst of a profound crisis for capital it could still do nothing except make mistakes. Therefore the solution they propose, is for the working class to get in line and follow that particular group. Here is another of the competing groups calling itself the Communist Party and announcing similar sentiments in the Daily worker April 2 1993;

"Our central aim is to re-forge the Communist Party of Great Britain. Without this Party the working class is nothing; with it, it is everything."

This statement clearly identifies the essential differences and relationship between the working class and the sectarian leaders of the Communist Party. Without them the working class is nothing. With them it is everything. In the name of the working class and ostensibly on behalf of the interests of the working class, this group can declare the working class is nothing if they fail to accept this particular group of people as its leaders. What a colossal arrogance! What patronising contempt for the working class! These people may have been forced to distance themselves from Stalin, but we can see that they have not broken with sectarianism. It is clear from this statement that in the opinion of the intellectuals of this group, it is not the worth of their Party which is determined by how much support it achieves within the working class, - but the worth of the working class which is determined by how much it recognises the leadership of the Communist Party. So proud of the differences between itself and the working class is this group, that it reverses the real nature of a class and those who seek to represent it politically. In actual fact it is more true to say that without the working class and anti-capitalist activists the Communist Party is nothing. Nothing, that is, except an inconsequential sect. The same goes for any aspiring revolutionary party which has a similar view of its role. The statement by this particular sect also indicates an unshakeable belief in its own correctness, which brings us to our next point

* An unshakeable (religious) belief it is own correctness despite its failures.

"The only way to halt the drive to war is by a victorious proletarian revolution to overthrow the capitalist system. To carry this out the working class must build the International Committee Fourth International and it's British section, the International Communist Party as its new revolutionary leadership. (International Worker 1992)

According to this group, in the conditions in 1992 in the aftermath of the Gulf War a great war (a conflagration they call it) was being prepared. This coming war could be halted only by a proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism. However, in order to do this the working class must build the International Committee of the Fourth International and its British section, which just happen to be the group giving this advice. In other words, before large numbers of the working class combine and protest over something which directly effects them, such as the drive to war, they would have to come to the prior conclusion that they need to build the International Committee of the Fourth International. Workers would need to ignore their own experience, ignore the history of revolutions, put off the struggle for unity based upon this experience, accept the word of this little sect and help build their sectarian party for them. That such a perspective is considered possible displays a complete lack of understanding of the revolutionary process and a quite unshakeable belief in their own correctness. What happens if the working class do not follow this path? If they fail to carry out the tasks allotted to them by this International Communist Party? Or to put it another way; what happens if revolutionary developments fail to take place according to this groups fantastic scheme? Would they try to make events fit their projected model and stand aside from events which didn't? This particular example is taken from a small Trotskyist organisation, but such characteristics are not restricted to the supporters of Trotsky. The following example is different in many ways but remarkably similar in having an unshakeable belief in its own importance and correctness.

The British Communist Party, the one which had supported Stalin through most of his reign of terror and never publicly condemned the era of Stalinism, had split and one section decided eventually to call it a day. Another group (we have already read their belief, that without them, the working class is nothing) were incensed at this action, saying;.

"We have news for Nina and her friends - our time has not even come yet. Despite the best efforts of her and her chums in the media, the Communist party is not dead: the Communist party lives and will be built into the mass party we need.....We recognise the need to single-mindedly analyse the experience of living socialism thus far, its weaknesses as well as its strengths." (Provisional Central Committee CPGB 1991)

Our time has not yet come; they boast. They accept they need to analyse the experience of living socialism (i.e. the Stalinist oppression and exploitation depicted in the last chapter) and its strengths (!) and weaknesses. In 1991 they belatedly discovered they needed to single-mindedly analyse the weaknesses of Stalinism, just as they had previously single-mindedly defended it to the hilt! Most working class anti-capitalists and other humanists had done this evaluation many years ago, and found the balance sheet extremely negative. The 'official' Communist Parties are so disgraced, that few consider they have a future at all. So bad is the reputation of Stalinism among the working classes that it is now hard to find anyone who wishes to repeat the experience of official Communism. Yet this Provisional Central Committee, which owed its existence to such a pedigree and lineage, considered its time hadn't come - yet! They still thought and acted as if they would be the mass anti-capitalist party of the future.

A group which at first consideration does not appear to be sectarian, is the Socialist Worker Party (SWP), formerly the International Socialists (IS). It's paper seldom, if ever, demonstrates any overt sectarian characteristics. Yet the more subtle forms of sectarianism are constantly at work, together with its almost complete organisational sectarianism. An example of the more subtle form comes from a report back meeting in 1993, concerning a UNITY demonstration against Fascism, held that same year which was anything but united. The leading member of a local SWP group boasted that despite a number other groups contributions to the demonstration, it was the SWP which had done most of the work and done most of the building for the demonstration, which as we shall see later was something of a shambles. In a sectarian aside he described an alternative demonstration against racism, held on the same day, as the 'sandals and white poppies' type demonstrators. This may seem a mild, local and apparently harmless sectarian taunt, yet this SWP member felt able to make such comments and it was greeted by other SWP members with evident smugness and amusement. There was no regret that what should have been a united demonstration against racism had become divided by sectarian posturing. The question arises; 'where was this sectarianism learned, by leading local members, if not at a national level? Irrespective of this remark being identified as sectarian by a non-member of the organisation, no retraction was forthcoming. This point may seem to be very little in the way of evidence, but it gives a flavour of the sectarian characteristics normally hidden within the groups inner life and there are many such examples. They are evidence that the climate of sectarianism can reach all the way from the public spheres of the groups to the private and to the lower ranks of these groups. Further evidence of a different kind, concerning the SWP, comes from those members of the group who have been or have become critical of the organisation.

Their treatment, at the hands of the leadership of the SWP, indicates a considerable degree of sectarianism at the leadership level. One member who became critical was unable to get his criticisms printed within the organisation's publications and so published his criticism outside. In his article he detailed his treatment at the hands of various levels of the organisation; treatment which varied from failing to acknowledge and answer correspondence, to his suspension from the group by telephone. In the article he relates that the membership of the IS was never asked directly about the change in name to SWP which, if true, gives evidence of a typical top-down hierarchical model of left groups, but not by itself evidence of sectarianism. He was also convinced that the permanent leadership of the party should not be in the hands of a small group of full-timers, but spread among other comrades within the organisation, and later asked the question:

" Is it not also the organisational sectarianism of IS in the last few years, our certainty that by ourselves we are building the party, and the related changes in policy and internal regime, which have disillusioned many existing and would-be members." (Open Letter to the Central Committee of the Socialist Worker Party M Shaw printed in Red Weekly June 1977)

He asked the question and got his answer in typical sectarian form - suspension from the group. The aspect of interest under this subheading is that of certainty in the correctness. Although in disagreement with a section of the leadership of this group, this critical member identified from within the organisation many failures. In particular, he acknowledged the existence, despite these failures, of the certainty of being correct. Another part of his criticism was that the IS had grown so sure and certain of this that it no longer wished to consider unity with other groups, a policy to which the organisation had earlier adhered. Another, perhaps more glaring and daily example of the SWP's organisational sectarianism is in the way they turn up to anti-capitalist activities, often only to sell their group's newspapers. This practice is one which is invariably commented upon by workers in struggle. If the SWP does not initiate or control a particular struggle or campaign, it seems only concerned to use the gathering of people as sources of paper sales. This does nothing to help unity, and in many instances such obvious parasitism serves more to turn workers away from them than it does to attract.

* Elevates trivialities to the level of principles and then works toward splits.

"There is no doubt that most of those who hold the view that the Soviet Union is State Capitalist or a new form of exploiting society, known as 'bureaucratic collectivism' have passed over the class line into support for imperialism and capitalism.." (A Jones Red weekly Supplement 1977)

Although this is not the worst case of elevating trivialities to the level of principles and then later causing splits, it exhibits many features of this practice. The characterisation of Russia as State Capitalist is often a matter of dispute amongst revolutionary intellectuals. Lenin used the term to describe Russia after the revolution and more than once claimed that State Capitalism would be an improvement on things as they then were. Trotsky, on the other hand, after a certain date characterised the Soviet Union as a 'Degenerated Workers State'. From the standpoint of the working class, whether these definitions were correct or not, is a secondary issue. The main issue, from a working class perspective is; what was going on in Russia in terms of the role and function of working people and their relationship to the means of production and distribution?

Were working people - all working people - deciding what to do and how to do it, or were they being told what to do and how to do it? Were they exploiting their own labour or was it being exploited by others? Who was deciding how much surplus labour to undertake and of what kind? We have noted that in the actual economic system under Stalin, workers were savagely exploited and oppressed - that is the fundamental issue - not whether such a state is best described as State Capitalist, Deformed Workers State or Bureaucratic Collectivist. But, of course, from the standpoint of sectarian intellectuals, whose primary concern is the competitive struggle for superior concepts, it is the existence of a supposedly 'correct' characterisation which is the fundamental issue. This is revealed in the above extract. The fact that some people hold the view that Russia was State Capitalist is elevated to a matter of principle, asserting that most who hold this view have passed over the class line into support for imperialism and capitalism. No proof of such a logically derived link was demonstrated, in the accompanying article. The contention was also idealist, in that it started from the ideas of State Capitalism and assumed that holding certain ideas was a break with the anti-capitalist and working class struggle. Holding certain ideas may break with a traditional revolutionary theory, but this does not by itself mean a break with the working class. The above quoted extract comes from a supplement in a series called the 'battle of ideas', published by a group called the International Marxist Group (IMG). The title of the series itself is an indicator of the sectarian elevation of the importance of ideas over reality. As noted, the IMG were once considered one of the least sectarian groups, but this was because at that time only the more bizarre forms of such activity were recognised as sectarian. Yet this extract shows that they were not immune from other deeply embodied sectarian characteristics.

A further example of this particular characteristic comes from a newspaper called the Workers Press. In an editorial column of the 5 June 1993 issue, appears a comment upon a contributor to a rival paper called Socialist Outlook and upon the rival group itself. In this case the raising of trivialities to the level of principles cannot lead to a split, since the groups are separate to start with. Nonetheless, further secondary issues did later manifest themselves in the form of a split and the example does illustrate the sectarian characteristic of raising trivialities to the level of principles. A contributor in the left paper Socialist Outlook, was taken to task for calling the General Secretary of the Trade Union congress, a buffoon. Instead, the rival paper, the Workers Press editorial, claimed, that the T.U.C. General Secretary was a reformist and that he defended the capitalist order. The use of the term buffoon, the editorial goes on to assert, is typical of the Socialist Outlook Group because;

"Socialist Outlook, is a group that on suitable occasions - when the bureaucracy is out of earshot - will proclaim itself 'Trotskyist'. In practice it 'acts to obscure the counter-revolutionary nature of trade union and labour leaders, in the guise of making certain criticisms of them."

This quote could have been placed in either this section or the one concerned with operating with logical deductions and abstractions, for it does both. It proposes a logical sequence and connection from the contributor's views to those of the group as a whole, this despite the fact that the paper in question, the Socialist Outlook carries a section, called where we stand, which clearly demonstrates an opposition to reformism and the TUC leaders. The left group, around the paper Socialist Outlook may not be above criticism. It may or may not have conducted itself well, or in line with the needs of the working class. Such shortcomings, particularly if they were substantial ones, would need to be identified and taken up seriously. But instead of this the editorial writer of Workers Press is contented with focusing on the inappropriate, but trivial use of the term 'buffoon' and then raising the use of this term to the level of a principle. The Workers Press editorial, in its selection of this particular comment, also in naming the contributor, manages to inject not a little sarcasm into its comments! This wasn't an editorial issuing a general caution against the misuse of language or cataloguing the errors of a particular contributor, it was a thinly disguised competitive sectarian attack upon a rival group, with no other reason but to elevate itself. In an amazing example of double-standards, an article in a previous issue of the Workers Press paper, deplored the excesses of sectarianism in another group. Yet this group demonstrated in this one short article that a number of sectarian characteristics were alive and well within its own ranks. Ironically the Socialist Outlook group, which was the target of this sectarian attack by the new WRP, didn't take long before it was able to demonstrate its own not too subtle sectarian credentials. It did this by walking out on a joint Workers Aid to Bosnia campaign. During a report back conference held in Manchester in 1993, it was not difficult to detect the sectarian posturing of the WRP: It was manifest in their speakers maintaining they had the answer, the solution, the 'key', to the success of the 'Workers Aid to Bosnia' campaign and the contention that other groups had turned their backs on certain international principles.

Sectarianism was also manifest in WRP members bitterness and boastfulness, as well as by operating by logical deductions during a number of their contributions to the debate. However, the Socialist Outlook group abandoned the united Workers Aid to Bosnia campaign. Their reason was that the WRP had caused the conference to adopt an organisational structure which wasn't sufficiently democratic. In other words the Socialist Outlook group made the form of democratic organisation of the Bosnia campaign more important than the objectives of the Bosnia campaign. During a period of what can only be called fascist type onslaughts by Serbian nationalists on multi-ethnic Bosnia, the Socialist Outlook group placed its own organisational demands higher than those of joint activity to help the Bosnian workers. The truly amazing point about this sectarian split was that the Socialist Outlook group had placed its own resolutions before the conference and only walked out after their resolution was lost. In other words it accepted the democratic right to place its resolutions before the conference, but demonstrated its sectarian disunity by splitting away when these resolutions were defeated. So important was anti-capitalist democracy to the Socialist Outlook group that it only refused to accept the democratic decision of the report back meeting after they had lost the vote. The result was, that in 1993 and 1994, there were two Workers Aid to Bosnia campaigns - one run by WRP supporters, the other run by Socialist Outlook supporters. Both groups contented themselves with considering they were in the 'right', whilst the Bosnian oppressed obviously got less support than could have been delivered by a united campaign.

* Calling frequently and loudly for unity but frequently sabotaging it.

Before leaving the previous example of the campaign for Bosnia, we should note that both the above groups called for unity and yet continued to sabotage it. The method of sabotage of unity was the use of the sectarian characteristic of elevating secondary issues to the level of principles and then using these as a reason to split. But the unity calls and the sabotage of it were certainly there. This issue of 'calls for unity' bring us on to yet another example from another group which wrote;

"To refuse to unite until agreement is reached on every dotted i and crossed t is the act of a sectarian, not a principled politician. It is the act of one capable of pulling down the blinds and soundproofing the room to keep out the sight and noise of the class struggle in the streets outside and let the petty-bourgeois circle or clique get on with the 'serious' business of 'discussion'. It is the act of one who believes that his group is the source of all wisdom, who believes that no other tendency has anything of value to offer."

This extract was part of a public declaration entitled 'Open Letter for a Revolutionary Regroupment'. The open letter was circulated by one Trotskyist group to other Trotskyist groups calling for regroupment among as many of them as possible, in a new and unified organisation. Meanwhile one of the authors of this open letter was almost simultaneously reminding his own members of the real purposes of this initiative. The group's internal bulletin message to members said; "I want to stress and underline that the goal is to recruit to WF". In other words the public message was of standing for a principled unity, but the private and real message was about poaching members. Such cynical double dealing is not rare and sadly few in the organisations carrying out such manoeuvres speak out against it. However, in this instance the ploy didn't work and this organisation failed to recruit. Very few groups took the regroupment invitation seriously. One which did enter discussions soon declined the invitation. In a letter to this latter organisation the group leader - the one who initiated the regroupment idea - was able to forget all that he had previously preached in the above quote and felt able to state;

"We shall learn that playing at diplomacy with tiny sectlets can produce nothing useful. We shall learn that a small group like ours can build only on the basis of consistent, hard propaganda for its politics, posing the questions sharply, not by attempting to form a refugee camp for those displaced from larger tendencies."

How transparently the real motives are displayed in this extract! The sentiments of the internal bulletin were openly revealed as frustration since the sectarian intrigue had delivered absolutely nothing. The call for unity was never more than 'playing at diplomacy' with smaller groups and trying to recruit, offering refuge, to those who were dissatisfied with their present group. Indeed, a close analysis of the whole escapade reveals the fact that whilst calling openly for unity, the leadership of this organisation, aided by the complicity of its leading members and the obedient silence of many of its ordinary members, was simultaneously undermining and sabotaging any real possibility of unity. And if the ordinary members are silent on these kinds of acts of duplicity and double dealing, when their groups do not hold political power and there is nothing substantial to lose, how would they behave if their group was in power and they had much to lose?

* Characterised by extreme bitterness and generally poisoning the atmosphere.

"This is a 'nasty' document, written, frankly from the premise that X was lost to WF and could best now serve the group's interests by having his pretentious quackery mercilessly dissected in front of the whole group....(He) is an enemy of the group and deserves no quarter..........If he can find it in himself to look coldly at what he has done and what he has written......and return as a disciplined member of the organisation, then it will not be as a disgraced 'capitulator' - no-one would demand formal or even informal, self-disavowal from him - but as someone deserving of respect for his sincerity and revolutionary integrity." (Marxism & Quackery S Matgamna & M Thomas - Workers Fight 1973)

This admission of nastiness is rare among sectarians, although it is sometimes too obvious to need such frankness. The above extracts span the early pages of a document of over 100 pages which were given over to the mercilessly exposing the pretensions of this former member of their own organisation. The writings of X, mentioned in the extract, are variously described as slanderous and containing the dirtiest, most prurient and patriarchal attitudes. He is declared an enemy and deserving of no quarter; yet in the same document, as the extract shows, it is announced that he would be quickly accepted back in the organisation as someone deserving respect for sincerity and revolutionary integrity. Let us assume that comrade X was, as they painstakingly make him out, the worst kind of excrescence possible. How can someone, who is a pretentious quack and who is guilty of the dirtiest and most prurient attitudes, be welcomed back into a genuine revolutionary anti-capitalist grouping?

Either the grouping has no humanist standards for membership of its organisation, and will allow and accept back this kind of prurient individual into its membership, or these charges are without foundation. If membership is open to such pretentious and prurient minded individuals, then the working class would do well to avoid having this group of individuals to lead them in the overthrow of Capital, for they would undoubtedly allow within their ranks, a present and future Stalin, as well as 'despicable' comrade X. If on the other hand, the charges were without foundation, and were merely fabrications to discredit someone in opposition, to the sectarian leaders then again the working class would do well to avoid this group. For what else are they likely to fabricate, and against whom? What motive could have inspired the production of 100 pages of such nastiness and contradiction? It certainly was indicative of a serious struggle. Was despicable comrade X really worth all this time and effort, particularly at a time when, like the WRP, the groups own perspectives announced that they were entering the most serious world capitalist recession for decades? Probably not. So why take the trouble?

It could of course be the case, as we have seen with the WRP, that comrade X had challenged the leaders of this grouplet to live up to their rhetoric, or had criticised them in some way, and touched a sectarian nerve. Then, in the characteristic way of sectarian leaders, the challenge to their leadership role would be more important than the crisis of the capitalist system. The sectarian tendency to defend themselves by 'mercilessly' attacking any criticism, was perhaps too much to resist. The authors of this document are undoubtedly correct when they declared their document a nasty one. Indeed, it is characterised by extreme bitterness and it certainly was written in the poisonous manner and atmosphere noted by Trotsky. This was not the first time the self same people had used similar tactics against others within their group who disagreed with them, and it would not be the last. We shall see one of this so-called Trotskyist duo in action again later, meanwhile here is a further example of bitterness and poison, taken from yet another group.

" The barely living fossils of the Communist Party of Britain convened their 41st Congress on November 9-10, held under the dark shadow of the counter-revolutionary collapse of bureaucratic socialism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The 130 delegates who managed to limp their way to Caxton House were 'treated' to two days of virtual non-debate and speeches which only the brain-dead could have found stimulating." (The Leninist 1991)

The former comrades of the members of this new group are described as barely living fossils, who after limping to a meeting, listened to speeches which only the brain dead could have found stimulating. Once again those, who until a few months earlier were comrades of the official communist (Stalinist) party, fighting the same battle, have by disagreeing been put beyond the pale, whilst the ones who stay faithful to the 'Leninist' are OK. Those who disagree are all old and infirm, whilst those who agree are presumably young and fit. Incredibly the workers of the world are urged to respect this new group, which does not display even a morsel of respect for its former anti-capitalist colleagues, and unite behind this group. Very little chance of workers doing that. Even the most hardened and cynical working person has more compassion and more sense of the contradictions of life than that.

We have heard the next particular Trotskyist 'leader' of the working class, being 'nasty' earlier in this section: we return to his writings after a gap of 20 years. The following extract comes from a short article in the newspaper Socialist Organiser.

"Hearse went about his work in grim earnest. He had written the earlier piece under a weak and weedy non-totemic, pseudonym, Paul Clarke, and had been called a wimp for it. The first thing to do was to get rid of that and - like a Red Indian brave preparing for the war-path - put on a new pseudonym, one fitting the grim earnestness of his task. Paul Clarke? Bah! Too soft! Not fierce enough! Ben Wolfe -son of wolf - that's better! Wolf? But wouldn't Leopard or Lion be even better - stronger, braver? Ubermensch Leopardi? Desperate Dan de Leon? He toys with the possibilities, but finally decides: no, moderation in all things. Ben Wolfe it is." (S Matgamna Socialist Organiser 1992)

Elsewhere, secondary school perhaps, this would be quite an interesting piece of creative writing, it could even be judged as mildly funny. The problem is that it is a complete piece of fiction masquerading as fact and was nothing at all to do with the issue under discussion. It was written as a sectarian polemic during a wrangle over a London Underground dispute. Whilst workers in the dispute were struggling against the management, the sectarians were struggling against each other. Perhaps the most noticeable point is that this extract is simply a lengthy taunt. It is an attempt to ridicule a rival leader in a rival group. A question arises. Why is so much time, space and energy put into such a trivial issue as this pure speculation on the reasons for choosing this particular pseudonym? What place does such ridicule have in serious debate within the anti-capitalist movement? How does such fanciful speculation advance the cause of the working and oppressed masses? The fact is that it does not. All it does is try to influence other members within the two rival groups. The facts about the case become submerged in a welter of such speculative and poisonous abuse masquerading as Marxist analysis. This is not the first instance by this author, so it is no mere momentary lapse. It is a deeply embodied characteristic. As with those leaders in the WRP, he seems content to make a life long career out of bitterness and writing 'nasty' documents. He simply can't help himself. In the macho world of sectarian political posturing - it is what turns him on! Despite a keen mind and fluent pen, his talents are subordinated, not to the needs of workers in struggle, but to petty sectarian point scoring and remaining 'king of his tiny castle'. Anyone who considers themselves a leader of the working and oppressed masses, and indulges in such rubbish, is unlikely to be taken seriously by workers. Likewise any member of his group supportive of such pathetic and irrelevant taunting, has a similar fate awaiting them. Neither have any business to consider themselves as eligible for leadership of the working class, even in a local struggle, let alone the overthrow of Capitalism. Yet arrogantly, such sectarians continue to put themselves forward as such.

* Often boastful and arrogant about abilities and/or achievements either real or imagined.

"Socialist Organiser is the only socialist newspaper arguing for US and British troops out of the gulf and Iraq out of Kuwait:" (1991)

The reader by now will not be surprised that this assertion was just not true. Other socialist newspapers called for exactly the same thing and also many local anti-Gulf War groups had bulletins which called for troops to get out of the gulf. The statement however, is not just an expression of ignorance, it is clearly meant to be boastful and arrogant. It cares little for those on the left or others opposing the Gulf war. It deliberately offends. It is also simplistically counter-productive. Anyone reading this apparently straight forward statement with a degree of knowledge and integrity, would have to ask; how far can these 'would be leaders' of the working class be trusted? Here is further example from another group we have already encountered.

"Only revolution can save our class and the whole of humanity from the horrors of capitalism, and revolution requires the re-forged Communist Party - that is the sole reason why the Provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain exists." (The Leninist 1991)

As previously noted, the members of this group did not expose Stalinism and far from building anything or re-forging anything, they have, on their own admission, been part of an organisation which we had split itself asunder. Yet the remnants of this failure, organised in a Provisional Central Committee, can boast they are not only capable of doing all this re-forging, but that the sole reason they exist is to save the working class and the whole of humanity. Are they modest or what? Without an analysis of Bolshevik degeneration, with their group split asunder, without an ounce of humility or compassion for their former comrades, they thought they were readying themselves to lead the anti-capitalist struggle.

A further example of the existence of boastful and arrogant characteristics is provided by the SWP in relation to the previously noted demonstration against the fascist British National Party headquarters on 16 October 1993. In the period prior to the call for a demonstration there had been a rapid increase in the number of racially inspired attacks upon black citizens in London. Many of these attacks had culminated in the deaths of the victims. Prior to the 16th October, a split had occurred between rival organisations and on that day two demonstrations in fact took place. One demonstration was organised by the predominantly black-led Anti-Racist Alliance and the other by a Unity Committee in which the SWP/ANL was the largest organisation. The Unity demonstration, which had the largest attendance, was guided by the police into a trap and effectively stopped, held there and then dispersed. The demonstration failed to reach the planned destination and consequently failed to achieve the main objective of closing down the BNP headquarters. The anti-fascist forces had first been split and then the larger section had been tricked into defeat. At a subsequent local report-back meeting of the SWP, the demonstration was hailed as a success for the SWP/ANL and as we have already noted, the contributions of the other organisations was for all practical purposes ignored, or belittled. In fact, with the exception of the excellent turn out of demonstrators, the whole episode was closer to a disaster than the success boasted by the SWP. Why?

First of all the forces against racism and fascism had been split and both sides were bad mouthing each other. Second, the Unity demonstration, for which the SWP claimed the major credit had completely failed in its objectives. Yet the SWP continued to be boastful about its achievements in its newspaper. In a subsequent Channel 4 television programme, a leading figure of the SWP (and of the ANL), continued to defend the action of refusing to unite with the Anti-Racist Alliance. It did so on the basis of its claim to have the 'correct' tactics for fighting fascism and racism. In this context it must be said that a number of the other 'left' groups who were part of the Unity campaign, also took a sectarian stance with regard to the black led anti-racist alliance.

* Generally operate by means of abstractions and are satisfied by logical deductions.

We have already seen a number of such sectarian abstractions and logical deductions emanating from the SLL and WRP. Unfortunately, the practice is not limited to them. Here is an example from another group.

"The historical genesis of Stalinism - that is the formation of an 'independent' bureaucracy with its own political regime and policies - points clearly to the necessity of differentiating between Stalinism, state and system. Only this differentiation enables us to demarcate clearly the nucleus of the programme for political revolution - maintenance of the collectivist state, planned economy and the monopoly of foreign trade - from the nucleus of the programme of capitalist restoration - the return of private ownership of the means of production, the end of state planning and the monopoly of foreign trade, and the introduction of the convertible currency to make integration into the world market possible." (Workers News Supplement 1991)

The number of abstractions in these two sentences is quite astounding; - historical genesis of Stalinism; the nucleus of the programme for political revolution; the necessity of differentiating between Stalinism, state, and system; - are just some. Which section of the state? Which part of the system? What historical genesis of Stalinism? etc. What message is the author trying to convey? Disentangling the abstractions may provide some clues. Clearly they are opposed to Stalinism and bureaucracy, but they seem to wish to hang on to the centralised state, the planned economy and the monopoly of foreign trade. Yet these are precisely the concepts and power structures which supported and assisted Stalin to perpetrate the attacks upon the working class and peasantry, outlined in the previous chapter, and maintain his position as leader. The above passage is contained within a theoretical supplement to a paper on sale to working and oppressed people, but clearly they aren't meant to understand it. The whole article, which contains many more such abstractions, assumes a knowledge of other documents and other dialogues to which the average reader is unlikely to have access. Even with such background information, the article is still hopelessly abstract and operates by logical deductions. Not only that, it fails to address crucial issues such as how the working class can ensure that, in a future revolution, another set of sectarian political leaders is not elevated to power with similar results to those experienced by Russian workers. A further example, taken from an earlier section of the same article, again illustrates the point.

"Without the systematic work of a revolutionary party, or if revolutionaries do not rise to the situation, defeats are inevitable. These can lead to historic defeats, with strategic consequences." (Workers News Supplement 1991)

The abstract nature of the passage is manifest in the terms 'systematic work'; 'strategic consequences' etc. But there is also a logical sequence operating in the sentence - an abstract logic of cause and effect. Without systematic work of a revolutionary party, (the cause) defeats (the effects) are inevitable. This in turn can lead to historic defeats (an additional 'effect' further down the supposed causal chain) with strategic consequences. Such an imaginary future pattern of events is not derived from a study of something which has happened, but a speculative prediction based upon some abstract notions of things that may have gone on before. The statement in the form presented is a speculative prediction - an abstract prophecy! Worse than that, it is one which cannot be proven in advance, nor challenged in retrospect, for it applies to no specific situation in time or geography. We cannot later look back upon the event and decide whether the author was right or wrong; for no real event has been described. However, the author will be able to relate these abstractions later to demonstrate how 'correct' he or she has been. For there will undoubtedly be defeats and failures to rise to the occasion. When they occur the author will be able to point to them and say he told us so; 'here is a defeat; here is a failure to rise to the occasion'. Such abstractions are always correct, since they are so general anything can be made to fit them. However, they are so abstract they can provide no guide to action. They are worthless except to those authors out to impress. From the standpoint of the working class or the anti-capitalist struggle this article does nothing except prove that someone can write long articles containing long words, that make very little sense and which conveniently avoid crucial issues. To people who have not developed effective crap detectors, and who are inclined to ascribe mystical powers to words and their producers, it may provoke some awe. They may serve to elevate the author, above his or her peers and group members. If its purpose is to educate and enlighten members and those outside the organisation, then the article must surely fail. It is almost incomprehensible to the average reader and more importantly, it provides no guide to action. Here is another example from yet another group.

"The Capital is the value in process, having reached autonomy, whose being consists in its movement as a value endlessly multiplying itself. Linking the productive forces' development to their periodic destruction, the phase of real domination of the Capital - imperialist and Fascist - breeds economic and social crisis, catastrophes and cataclysms." (World Communist Group 'Programme' 1990)

Although appearing in Britain the pamphlet which contained this extract was clearly a translation from French. For these reasons we cannot be too critical of the grammar, for this may not be the fault of the author. However, even with some creative endeavours to extract meaning, the passage is incredibly abstract. For example; 'Capital is the value created in the Capitalist production process, which has reached autonomy.' In other words in the process of creating products and services, Capital is value which has become independent (autonomous) of the process of production.' If this was what the author was getting at in the first sentence, then why not just select a passage from Marx? The programme claims to be Marxist! This passage adds nothing to the description of Capital by Marx. Indeed, it subtracts from Marx, because for Marx, Capital was not autonomous from the production process, but absolutely reliant upon it. Capital is, and was, dependant upon the system of capitalist production for its existence and has to be continually thrown back into the production process to maintain and increase itself. Capital may have an apparent autonomy in certain parts of the capitalist process, but in actual fact it is entirely dependant upon the capitalist process of production and exchange. The rest of the above passage is similarly abstract where it is not wrong, and wrong where it is not abstract. The reader is invited to go back over the quote and see if any sense can be made of it. As with the previous example, it may impress some impressionable people, but it is unlikely to enlighten anyone.

The obsession of sectarians for abstractions and logical deductions is no more clearly revealed than in their internal bulletins and conference documents. Often these amount, to reams of paperwork even in small groups. In some groups with productive intellectuals, for example, it is easier to weigh pre-conference documents than count them. The purpose of all this erudition is to establish the 'correct' set of ideas. to guide the actions of the members for the period ahead. Very little by the way of evaluation will be suggested in these documents, so the following year's conference will be unable to decide whether it was the ideas which were useful or hopeless, or whether the success or failure of member's actions were responsible for whatever outcome materialised. Ideas which succeed at Conference will often attract a popularising slogan such as 'Turn to the Youth'; 'Work in the Trade Unions'; 'Building the paper' etc. If such an initiative fails it will be quietly dropped, and if it succeeds (success often being claimed for even paltry or modest advances) then it will be the power of the correct ideas and the authors of those ideas which will be elevated rather than the efforts of those who did the donkey work.

* Demand the movement as a whole subordinate itself to their particular group.

Another group, the International Communist Party, explains it was founded in 1986 out of the struggle against the national opportunist degeneration of the Workers Revolutionary Party. At that time, as we have already noted the WRP was led by Gerry Healy, Mike Banda, Cliff Slaughter and Sheila Torrence. This re-formed group named the people above and described them in the following way;

" The purging of this cancer from the World Party was the decisive political preparation for the revolutionary struggles that are now on the agenda.... Only the ICFI takes responsibility for the international working class; to mobilise its independent strength against its treacherous leaderships and the capitalist system on the programme of proletarian internationalism. Our participation in these elections is part of this struggle - to prepare the most conscious sections of workers and youth for the situation now confronting it through the building of this World Party." (A Socialist Strategy. Published. International Communist Party. 1992)

Having described their former comrades as a cancer, (not a little bitterness here) the new group explain that only the group to which they belong takes responsibility for mobilising the strength of the working class. The 'election' tasks they were undertaking at that moment were preparations to fortify the most conscious sections of the workers, through building the World Party. It amounts to yet another reworking of a familiar theme. Only 'this' group can lead the working class. Workers who want to overcome capitalism, must help build 'this' party. In other words the worker's and anti-capitalist movement must subordinate itself to this group. It repeated this message in leaflets as well as its pamphlets. All other groups were just pests which get in the way.

Which brings us to another group. After describing all other anti-capitalist groups as 'pests' and that these groups are; "used to picking dung heap in the backyard of the workers' movement, and they cackle at anything new that the genuine communists do.", yet another group declares itself as the true leaders of the oppressed masses. They inform us that the factors they outline;

"...show clearly the excellent situation in the world where the people of the world led by the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao are on the verge of launching the final offensive, this year (1975) to dismantle the old world of colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism and build the new world of socialism. The establishment of the international dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for this, led by the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao and with the People' s Liberation Army of China as its main pillar. Only thus can mankind march forward to communism." (The New World - Journal of Workers' Institute of Marxism - Leninism - Mao Tsetung Thought. 1975)

This extract, as with a number of others, could have appeared under a number of the subheadings of this chapter. It shows a religious-type unshakeable belief in their correctness, despite the actual historical development. It indicates they feel they have the 'key' to the problems facing workers in Chairman Mao's thoughts. They chronicle their bitterness and elitism in describing other anti-capitalists as pests who pick at dung, and they are boastful and arrogant - 'Our force is irresistible!' However, it is the last two sentences which suggested its placement under this subheading. The logic of the class struggle, from the standpoint of the working class, according to Marx, continually pointed to the need to overthrow the rule of capitalism and institute an alternative system based upon working class community control of production and distribution. Hence the term commune (communes of workers and peasants) and hence Communism. According to the Institute of Marxism - Leninism - Mao Tsetung Thought, this can be achieved only if mankind march behind them and the Chinese Communist Party. If this is not an implicit demand that the movement as a whole subordinate itself to this particular group, it would be hard to find a clearer one. Here is the final weary example from another Trotskyist group.

"This is why in today's conditions of crisis the responsibility to develop the demands of the transitional programme to further the struggles of all the oppressed strata of capitalist society rests with the WSL, both to lay the political basis of unity within the working class, and to win these sections to the struggle for state power."

Everything now depends upon the W.S.L. How many times this dreary egotistical incantation is reproduced by each group on the sectarian left. They can't even lead themselves out of the ruts of their own sectarianism, let alone lead anyone anywhere else. Yet each group considers that the future of the whole world is dependant upon it and its efforts. Each believe they are going to be the saviours of the world. Each sectarian group leadership is convinced - utterly convinced - against all evidence to the contrary, that they are the 'real' or 'true' leadership (or at the very least the core of a future true leadership) of the whole of suffering humanity. Instead of joining the working class in its anti-capitalist struggles, they expect the working class to join them in their sectarian posturing. If the left sectarian groups cannot combat their own sectarianism, unite and overcome their relatively small differences, what hypocrites they must appear to workers and other anti-capitalists. All the more so when they stridently announce the need for working class and anti-capitalist unity.

Despite the cursory and somewhat arbitrary nature of these examples and selections, evidence of at least nine of the ten characteristics of sectarianism have been identified. It has been possible to distinguish these characteristics using only a small selection of the published writings of a variety of groups, (fourteen in number) over a twenty year period of time. Whilst not exhaustive, the extracts have been sufficient to establish that sectarianism has remained not only in existence, but has a strong hold on practically all the so-called revolutionary groups that published articles, papers and magazines within Europe and in many cases beyond. Not all the groups which exist have been quoted. This does not mean that these are not sectarian. That is a question which can only be answered by considering their behaviour and characteristics. Of the groups quoted, some are more sectarian than others, but most display a number of sectarian characteristics. The important fact is they display these characteristics, despite the opinions of their theoretical founders, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Their actions - even those of the least sectarian - are contrary to the advice of these mentors and their sectarian existence is condemned by them as reactionary.

Moreover, Sectarianism is not an inevitable outcome of all anti-capitalist activity, but a definite type of so-called left revolutionary anti-capitalist activity. Only a crude determinist would now try to explain or excuse sectarianism by reference to objective circumstances within the anti-capitalist struggle. The behaviour of sectarians has always been a choice of how groups, and individuals within the groups, conduct themselves. Since it is a choice, it can be remedied. However, some entrenched sectarians have been and will continue to be, unable to shed their sectarian characteristics, for that would be tantamount to an admission of long practised errors. Others will refuse to recognise that they are sectarian. In such cases, we can expect every device will be used to wriggle, squirm, rationalise, condemn or ignore criticism. Opponents of sectarianism outside and inside those organisations must expect that. No ruling political elite (and sectarian leaders have been the ruling elite among the revolutionary left for at least 50 years) has ever given up its position without first resorting to such tactics. The decisive question will be; how many of the members will allow such practices to continue, or remain within such groups, once sectarianism has been identified? The continuation of sectarianism in all its forms - strident or muted, glaring, or shrouded, subtle or crude - has definite negative repercussions within the anti-capitalist and working class struggle. For it is not only the founders of revolutionary socialism which are at odds with their continued sectarianism, but also the people who the sectarians seek to lead. The actions and existence of such groups have so far also been shunned by large numbers of working people, who even when in serious struggle, do not turn to them for guidance or join them in significant numbers. Sectarianism in anti-capitalist 'left' groups has also been condemned, if only silently, by large numbers of their former members, who have simply dropped out, after being worn out, disgusted, or both.

In chapter one, it was argued that since sectarianism did not benefit the working class, nor directly the ruling class, it is unlikely that it would arise strongly or persistently from within these classes. The conclusion drawn was that its most likely source would be the disaffected and radicalised middle-class intelligentsia. In chapter 2, the brutal, defensive hold on power and privilege by the Stalin faction was seen to have essentially the same characteristics, but with the added advantage of state control. In this chapter we have seen sectarianism alive and well and being perpetuated well into our own epoch, despite the counsel of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. It has been noted that each group's programme will contain some reference to the need for anti-capitalist unity in order to achieve the overthrow of Capital, yet they will not unite among themselves. In other words the workers, who are made up of various ethnic, racial, cultural, occupational and religious groups, are supposed to rise above such divisions - in the interests of the anti-capitalist struggle; whilst the revolutionary intellectuals allow themselves to remain divided over petty differences - also in the name of the anti-capitalist struggle. In a serious situation such rival leaders would do all they could to prevent unity of the workers and anti-capitalists by campaigning for their own group to lead it. They actually think if they don't lead it, it cannot succeed. The worker and anti-capitalist members of such groups would have to ignore or go behind such leaders' backs, or over their heads, to achieve unity with other workers. More frustrating than that, the rank and file in these groups would have to fight against their own leaders to achieve unity. This type of scenario is no mere speculative assertion for as we have already noted, this is reasonably close to what occurred in the struggle against Fascism in Germany in the 1930's, an assertion which can be amply confirmed by a study of that particular period. As noted in the introduction, and as witnessed in this chapter, sectarians are so good at disunity that if such groups did not exist already 'an astute ruling class would probably want to invent them'.

Part Two (Post-Capitalism without Humanism) will follow the thoughts of Lenin on the problems between leaders and led in the Russian Revolution, it will also look at the problem of the role of the working class and revolutionary intellectuals from the standpoint of the suggestions made by Marx and Engels. Meanwhile based upon the information presented in the last two chapters we can perhaps begin to agree with the poet Hans Magnus Enzensberger in his commentary on the heritage of Marx;

Postscript:

The question of how to orient to the sectarianism of those involved in any solidarity movement or within a left group, is a particularly difficult problem. However, there are some basic guide-lines. They are:

a) Sectarianism cannot be fought by sectarianism. It doesn't matter who starts it in one sense, or who manifests it most glaringly. This is of some interest and relevance, but it cannot be a reason for not trying the utmost to obtain unity in struggle. Organising separately before every possibility of unity has been explored is not the way forward.

b) Disagreements over secondary issues should not be allowed to detract from the basic reason for the campaign. This means that if agreement cannot be reached then a compromise should be attempted with both sides giving way. If a compromise cannot be reached then the decision should be given to some neutral parties within the campaign. If the secondary issue is put to a vote then those losing the vote should accept this and continue to work alongside the others in order to convince the majority in practice. Either that or be proved wrong.

c) If it proves impossible to work with alongside a particular group because it is damaging the work of solidarity of working and oppressed people then an amicable split should be attempted with credit being given to the good work of the other group. A division of labour on the issue should be attempted. Attacking the other groups failures (particularly whilst hiding one's own) does nothing in either the short term nor does it win their supporters away from sectarianism in the long term. Let the long-term verdict of working and oppressed people be commentary enough.

d) A recognition of the destructiveness of sectarian division should be followed by a serious and consistent revolutionary struggle against it within ones own group and within ones own conduct. Sectarianism cannot be reformed away. The differences between Lenin and Trotsky and Marx and Engels over sectarianism was that the former tried to shame (reform) it out of existence whilst Marx and Engels adopted a revolutionary strategy. Without such a high (and revolutionary) profile the struggle against sectarianism will not treated as a serious problem. Without treating it as a serious problem it will not be overcome. We need to start with ourselves and with our own group. This means giving it serious and in depth analysis in all its forms and manifestations and including education and training in non-sectarian interventions and collaboration in united fronts. The existence of one consistently non-sectarian left group would do much to elevate the status of the left among working people and do much to undermine the sectarianism of other left groups.

e) An individual or group individuals who recognises the destructiveness of sectarianism should begin to monitor and argue against ALL manifestations of sectarianism within his or her own group. He or she should rally those within his or her group who can be convinced of the need for this struggle. If this fails to move a majority within the particular group, then such attempts should only be continued as a short or medium term perspective for these few should be looking to uniting with other revolutionaries who are committed to the same non-sectarian perspective.

f) Such a non-sectarian unity does not mean suppressing political differences concerning tactical or secondary issues. They would merely cease to be shibboleths. Providing they are conducted within a revolutionary perspective such differences can be subjected to comradely debate and more importantly where possible, practical evaluation. Any temporary loss of contact with other comrades would be more than made up for by the provision of a pole of attraction for all the best revolutionary forces, who when they see the difference in practice will make good any loss by joining the newly constructed non-sectarian group.

g) For revolutionaries, unity is not reform or revolution, but reform and revolution. The struggle for reforms is an important part of the struggle against oppression and exploitation. The winning of reforms can strengthen the forces opposed to capitalism, whilst the failure to grant reforms, can lead to an increase in the forces moving toward revolution. Only sectarians can counterpose the struggle for reforms against a so-called 'true' path of revolutionary struggle. This is particularly sectarian where those fighting for reforms are relatively new forces in the opposition to the capitalist process.