If there is one general difference that divides the political Left and the political right then it could be that too often the Left behaves in a manner that is very much like that of a religious belief, whereas the right, especially in economic matters works on evidence. I cannot for example prove my belief that God exists, I can only express how it makes me feel or focus my desires on the future. This concentration on feelings and the hope that one day ‘when the Revolution comes’ all will be right is something that also characterises the Left.
Although I no longer consider myself a person of the Lefist persuasion, which I was many years ago, I must say at this point that I have met and encountered a lot of decent people on the Left. Not every Lefty thinks its OK to throw British schoolgirls to the Islamic wolves or scream abuse at those whom they disagree with or denigrate Britain’s service personnel or act as if they are the keepers of the one true flame of socialism. There are some who merely have a political view that they wish to promote, just as I now have a centre-right view that I wish to promote. It would be a very boring world if everyone’s politics was the same.
The history of the British Left, and that of the various revolutionary groupuscules is fascinating. It is in no way irrelevant to the problems we are facing today. This is partially because members of many of the far left groups of the past have gone on to embed themselves into other parties, our public services and our charity sector, and not all of them have seen the light about Leftism as I believe I have, and are bringing their socialist views to the workplace. We need to know the history of the revolutionary Left in Britain so that we can see how we got to where we are today.
One of the great chroniclers of Britain’s far left was the socialist writer the late John Sullivan (no, not the writer of Only Fools and Horses who merely shared the same name) who brought a great deal of humour to his story of the far Left in the UK. His book ‘As soon as this pub closes’ is a great primer on Britain’s left, far left and completely off the wall mental left.
Here’s some excerpts from John Sullivan’s book that show both his in depth knowledge of Britain’s Left but also his wry humour in dealing with this subject. Many of the leftist groups that Sullivan documented back in the mid 1980’s are, like the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic no longer with us. But for those who have survived, fate have not been good to either them or to the rest of us who suffer the effects of their policies once they were enacted. Some parties have either split into different antagonistic groups, for example the Workers Revolutionary Party, or tried to hold on to their ‘one true faith’ as per the Socialist Party or have morphed into dangerous pro-Islam parties which has been the fate of the Socialist Workers Party.
Here’s the introduction to ‘As soon as this pub closes’ written by Dolores O’Shaughnessy
“September 1986 TUC Conference: Lunchtime
THE entrance to the conference hall is nearly deserted. The delegates have retired to adjacent hostelries to sink enough pints to allow them to sleep through the afternoon debate, so most literature sellers have taken a break.
Only two groups remain. One, the Spartacist League, are chanting ‘General Strike Now’, while another, the International Communist Party, try to drown them out with ‘Build the ICFI’ – International Committee of the Fourth International to the uninitiated. Do they hope to convert each other? Or myself, the only other listener? Surely not, but each feels that the first to leave would be chicken. I am glad my daughter is not in sight as she is probably warm and dry – on the other hand, she has my coat. Resisting the temptation to raise my own slogan – ‘Smash neo-Kantian revisionism!’ – I leave both groups to the sardonic screaming of the gulls. The rain drizzles from a lead-grey sky as I walk to the station. ‘So what’, you may say, ‘I never did care for Brighton.’ However, the two groups, and their rivals who have gone to lunch, form the core of organised British socialism. If a bureaucrat temporarily wakes from his slumber during the afternoon and feels any guilt about applauding the hypocritical rhetoric coming from the platform, he has certainly in his youth been a supporter of one of the socialist groups. This work is to be commended for providing the uninitiated with a guide through the labyrinth.”
Much of the descriptions of the arcane convolutions of the far Left in Britain in the period up to the mid 1980s when this book was written will baffle younger or non-Left readers. However at the time, the minuate about what socialism meant or what Trotsky intended, were live issues for those involved in these groups. There are some hilariously written chapters such as this one quoted below on the ‘Squaddists’ as well as an honest account of the leader of the Workers Revolutionary Party Gerry Healy, now widely regarded by both Left and Right as a bit of a sex beast.
On the subjet of the Squaddists John Sullivan said:
“IN the early 1980s, as Tony Cliff was walking through Islington market, he stopped to watch some of his supporters battling it out with the National Front, when something struck him as odd. His followers were on suspiciously good terms with the ‘enemy’, and the battle was obviously being conducted according to recognised rules. When the whistle blew for half time, the antagonists bowed to each other and went off to drink in the same pub (admittedly in separate bars). Cliff, a near-teetotaller who genuinely detests Fascists, ordered an inquiry fearing that the local SWP had been infiltrated by the Sealed Knot Society, who dress up and re-enact historic battles. It transpired that, on a previous occasion, a rising young SWP intellectual had been recognised by his own comrades and beaten up when he refused to join in the fun.
The street fighters, known as ‘Squaddists’ by other SWP members and who now serve as an inspiration to the currently fashionable Gay Nazi pop artists Gilbert and George, refused to admit that their behaviour amounted to revisionism. Cliff, who is historically well informed, had in consenting to their semi-autonomous existence been taking a leaf from the book of the Catholic Church which creates religious orders to channel the enthusiasm of particularly devout believers, while preventing them from getting in the way of the mainstream operation. Some ‘Squaddists’ adopted the RCP line that Fascists are more honest than Labourites and Trotskyists, who although equally racist, hypocritically refuse to go out and beat up Blacks. It was alleged that the SWP’s inability to appreciate the rules of chivalry observed in the battles with the National Front were a proof of its pacifism and that many Front members were good types, although politically mistaken. When the ‘Squaddists’ were shown the door, they set up the journal Red Action, and denounced all other groups as incurably petit-bourgeois because of their addiction to reading and discussion and refusal to engage in physical combat.
The ‘Squaddists’ insisted that they were the only authentically working-class group on the left, and that they were particularly eager to assist all genuine struggles for national liberation. Such a juxtaposition is confusing only to those unable to decode the message. A group which wants to hire itself out always makes such a declaration. When dropping their jeans to display their charms, it is important to emphasise to potential customers that these exquisitely-shaped buttocks are proletarian. Most bourgeois nationalist groups have preferred to seek more up-market partners.”
Or this on the awful Gerry Healy and his celebrity endorsed Workers Revolutionary Party
“UNTIL August 1985, Gerry Healy was the most charismatic figure on the British left. Suddenly the Central Committee of the WRP, led by long-time Healy clone Mike Banda, announced that their founding father was being charged with the sexual abuse of dozens of female comrades, use of party funds for his own purposes, and complicity in the murder of opponents of the Iraqi government by selling information on Iraqi dissidents in Britain.
Knowledgeable WRP-watchers reacted by saying: ‘That’s as may be, but what has he done to annoy Mike Banda?’ James P. Cannon, the mentor of both Healy and Banda, used to say that in any split there was always two reasons: a good reason and the real reason. The real reason was that the petrodollars were drying up as the lords of the desert who were Healy’s bankers became sceptical about their franchisee’s ability to influence British politics. Furthermore, the paymasters were demanding more and more risky services, which if discovered would alarm the WRP cadres, most of whom were Equity members. Healy’s personal conduct with the youth section was becoming more and more bizarre and difficult to conceal from the members; one outraged father had physically attacked the venerable patriarch, and had to be persuaded to keep quiet. Financial bankruptcy would have led to the auditors examining the books and revealing God knows what. Worst of all, although Healy had relinquished the post of General Secretary to Banda, he was not giving up power. Banda was pushing 60 and feared that he might never inherit the throne. Banda conspired with Sheila Torrance, the WRP’s membership secretary, to force Healy to retire, but Torrance feared that Banda, who lacks Healy’s bluffs Irish good nature, would be an untrustworthy colleague, so she defected back to Healy, who also kept the allegiance of the actors, leaving Banda with most of the full-time organisers and the ‘red professors’, who had for many years provided Healy with theoretical justification when he required it.
However, a majority of the Central Committee agreed that Healy’s colourful lifestyle was grounds for expulsion. In the chill of dawn, the conspirators shivered at the enormity of what they had done. Killing the king would surely bring retribution. Banda tried to raise morale by describing the benefits which his reign would bring, but some old-timers feared that Caligula was replacing Tiberius. Once the deed was done, Banda’s coalition began to fall apart. Although Healy had started his rise to fame as a lackey of the American Socialist Workers Party, he had soon created his own myth of infallibility. Many WRP members, unable to face life without their all-wise leader, had mental breakdowns.”
This section on the history of the extremely long lived Socialist Party of Great Britain is both illuminating and quite funny.
“The party’s formula for achieving socialism is beautifully simple: the workers are to become individually convinced of the socialist case, and when that has been done they will vote in a government which will decree socialism at a stroke. No attention is given to boring questions of tactics or strategy. The SPGB thus achieves the unique distinction of being both constitutional and revolutionary. Through this formula the SPGB avoids the strains which drive other socialists to drink or revisionism. The very simplicity of the formula might seem to rule out the possibility of discussion. However, the D of P, inflexible as it is in the area which it covers, does not specify what the society of the future will be like; consequently, SPGB meetings, whatever the ostensible topic, quickly tend to gravitate towards discussion on precisely this theme. Under socialism will we be vegetarian, monogamous or not? Will we still live in cities? Will we use more or less water, and will goods still be mass produced? Visitors to SPGB meetings, expecting to hear solemn Marxists discussing how to overthrow the bourgeoisie, are usually surprised and charmed. No speculation is forbidden by the D of P, so imaginations can soar, unfettered by the tedious discussions on tactics and strategy which form the content of most socialist theory. Even the least imaginative of the speculations are more appealing than descriptions of the Christians’ dreary, male chauvinist heaven.
It is accepted sociological wisdom that any organisation which has existed for three generations should have achieved a measure of family continuity, and so be relieved of the constant necessity to win converts from the outside world. As the SPGB is the only political sect which has been around long enough to test the theory on, it has attracted more attention from sociologists than from students of politics. In fact, the SPGB’s achievement there has not yet equalled that of any established religious sect. What does happen, according to Barltrop, is that new members join because of social relationships rather than formal propaganda, which serves as a diversion for the members rather than as a source of recruitment. The party is, apart from the Discussion Group, the only socialist organisation which is at all difficult to join. Members have to satisfy a committee that they understand the SPGB’s case; in contrast, the vanguard groups will accept anyone who does as she is told.
In the 1950s, the SPGB seemed like a survivor of the Edwardian era, rather like the Secular Society, with whose cultural milieu it overlaps. However, just as that scene was rejuvenated by a revival of interest in the universities, so to a lesser extent was the SPGB. This has changed the internal atmosphere in ways which are sometimes worrying. Discipline, once draconian, has become very lax: some of the younger members’ interpretation of the ‘hostility clause’ is frankly alarming. They argue that the while the D of P enjoins hostility to rival organisations, this need not be extended to the members of such organisations. On a strictly legalistic reading of the D of P, this is perhaps allowable, but it would severely weaken the social effect of the hostility clause. It would never have been accepted by the stalwarts who built the party, and it goes against its whole tradition. Some of the new wave wish to substitute a plan to transform society gradually through the growth of cooperatives for the party’s traditional programme of an immediate transition to socialism once it has a firm parliamentary majority. It would be sad indeed if a party which fought so long against the Social Democratic theory of gradualism were to succumb to the life-stylism which has destroyed so many of its rivals.”
Even if you have never been a socialist or are no longer a socialist, As Soon As This Pub Closes is a valuable historical document telling of a now bygone age. It speaks of a time before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when a large number of people believed that socialism could make a credible economic case for its existence. Looking at it from today’s vantage point we can see that they were wrong and that socialism has never and will never bring about the sort of workers paradise that it once claimed it could do. What comes over most strongly from ‘As Soon As This Pub Closes’ is the striking similarity between the types of people who are attracted to extreme religious paths and those who choose extreme political paths. In fact John Sullivan touches on this in his conclusion chapter when he says:
“In sum, political sects provide a refuge which many people need, either permanently or temporarily. They are the heart of a heartless world, and will disappear only when that world begins to change. “
Although many of these far left groups are no longer with us or have adapted to fit in with the changing political landscape that doesn’t mean that they are irrelevant, or have had no effect on today’s political scene. We are still in the 21st century living with the fall out, both good and ill, of the politics of the 20th century. If we do not learn the history of failed political movements, then we and our children will be cursed to experience again the problems caused by Leftist movements trying and failing again to bring about a collective heaven on earth. Those who think that this is all a matter for the historians have obviously never seen members of the Socialist Workers Party or other far Left groups in action. The collectivists are still here and still waging their long war against freedom of thought, political freedom and freedom of conscience. Back then they, the far Left wore jeans and screamed for communism, now they wear sharp suits and speak softly about ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’. Today we are still waging a war against oppressive collectivism it’s just that the battleground has changed enormously. The Tankies, Trots and true believers may have gone but the struggle against those who would use a socialist hammer to beat down the individual still goes on.
Links
The full text of the ‘As Soon As This Pub Closes’ book
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-index.html
Obituary of the socialist writer John Sullivan.
http://www.whatnextjournal.org.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext27/Sullivan.html
