Friday 6 November 2020

Trotsky, Weimar and the Labour Party Divided

 

Leon Trotsky, or Lev Davidovich Bronstein, to give his pre-revolutionary name, is not much talked about nowadays, which is unfortunate, as, despite his ideological rants and tragic life, he was acclaimed in his lifetime as an outstanding writer and political commentator. A leading light in the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent civil war, he fell foul of Stalin and left Russia for exile in 1929. He might have thought himself lucky to escape alive, but Stalin got him in the end. A Stalinist assassin, Ramon Mercador, killed him in Mexico, 20 August 1940.  Trotsky's principal political legacy was his variant of Marxism called "Trotskyism", which inspired British left-wing parties such as the Workers' Revolutionary Party (WRP), the International Marxist Group (IMG), the Socialist League (SL) and - to a limited extent - the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP). The "limits" to his influence on the SWP lay in the fact that the SWP never joined the Fourth International. The names of these parties ring in my mind like distant memories; Trotskyism and Marxism have faded into the political background and no longer have the significance they had back in the 1960s and 70s.

Nonetheless, I believe that Trotsky was a man of rare political vision who can provide us with insight into our present-day politics. Outside scholars and specialist websites, there is no recognition of his perceptive analysis of the reaction by the German left wing parties to the looming Nazi threat in the pre-1933 Weimar Republic. Trotsky, despite still considering himself a communist, saw clearly that the only chance for the Left to stop the Nazi takeover was for the Social Democrats (SPD), Communist Party (KPD) and the German Trade Unions to join forces and fight. In May, 1932, he said:

" I believe that if the most important organizations of the German working class continue their present policy, the victory of fascism will be assured almost automatically...I believe that the Communist Party must propose an agreement for struggle to the Social Democratic Party and the leadership of the Free Trade Unions, from below up to the very top...the united front of the working class against fascism must have a fully concrete, practical, and militant character. Its point of departure should be defense of all institutions and conquests of proletarian democracy and, in a broader sense: defense of culture before barbarism."

Had Trotsky been heeded, and the Left had won, the world would have been saved from some of the most hideous crimes ever committed against humanity; had they lost, at least they would have gone down fighting, instead of the tame way they submitted to Nazi repression.


So, what's this to do with the Labour Party at the present time? Literal-minded people will undoubtedly deny any similarity between the internal Labour Party divisions and the divided German left in the Weimar Republic. Of course, there are obvious differences which I have no need to spell out, but there are similarities that should serve as a warning. 

The internal divisions in the Labour Party have always existed. They are usually depicted as a straight split between Left and Right. It's often more subtle than that, but present-day divisions are broadly between the Corbynista followers of the former leader and a seemingly quiescent faction that supports the new leader, Keir Starmer. In a previous post, I predicted that Starmer would face a barrage of hostility from Corbyn acolytes smarting from the unseating of their "Lost Leader" - the leader who lost the election.

 I was right, as expected. Another Angry Voice thunders: 

" I have tried to give Starmer the benefit of the doubt, but it's increasingly difficult to keep doing it, given that he's outed himself as an opportunistic liar, trampled all over his promise to maintain party unity within months of becoming leader,"

The Canary laments: 

"Keir Starmer has announced a revived approach to the military from the Labour Party, to coincide with Armed Forces Day. But his approach just cements the notion that the new, rather “Blue“, Labour leader is little more than a political opportunist and charlatan; one who’s willing to out-Tory the Tories in an attempt to gain power".

And there are many similar posts on social media. I would not seek to suppress these correspondents, and I know that many Starmer supporters are no less scathing about Corbyn, although I admit to having seen no similar vitriolic attacks upon Corbyn. But the warning from Trotsky and from History is quite clear: factional in-fighting leads to defeat. If the Labour Party cannot put the past behind it and unite, then the real enemy - in our case, the Tory Party - will triumph. I don't often quote the Bible, but...



2 comments:

  1. I have read suggestions that there are some people in the Labour Party who preferred a Tory victory to a Labour one under Corbyn, and that they actively undermined his leadership. If this is true, it is a complete disgrace.

    Pleas for Labour unity are likely to fall on deaf ears. Re: Starmer's sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey for sharing what he described as an anti-Semitic trope. If a criticism of the alleged methods of the Israeli security forces is to be interpreted as hatred of Jews and Judaism, then we are in a position that it is almost impossible to criticise Israel for anything.

    My view is that Starmer's action against RBL has allowed him to kill two birds with one stone: he got rid of Long-Bailey, a prominent Corbynite, and at the same was lauded for taking decisive action against accusations of anti-Semitism. It thus allowed him to depict himself as a decisive new broom.

    At the same time, Corbyn's followers are showing little sign of scaling back their own activities for the collective good of winning an election. While it would be unreasonable to expect them to sell out their principles, it is not good PR for a political party to wash so much of its dirty laundry in public.

    Politics is about both principle and pragmatism. I'd suggest that the followers of neither Starmer nor Corbyn have managed to get the balance right. The Starmer camp is too wedded to pragmatism, while the Corbyn camp is unwilling to scale back any principles for the party's collective good.

    As a consequence, the saga of this deep split will run and run - all in a blaze of extremely damaging publicity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more. The only hope is that the Tories will make such a hash of things that the electorate sees sense. Well, I hope they see sense...

      Delete