tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post4943539904962998090..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Ted Grant and TrotskyismPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-33684411021646370252013-09-11T19:47:41.923+01:002013-09-11T19:47:41.923+01:00That was why all Woods blather about his opponents...That was why all Woods blather about his opponents' "Zinovievism" was utter crap. You just have to see how the IMT handled its recent split to see how broken their conception of socialist politics are.<br /><br />The whole point of the biography was to position Woods as Grant's heir, as the living, breathing embodiment of the unbroken thread running back to the grey beards. It's pathetic really.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-54238757474184267602013-09-10T02:11:39.421+01:002013-09-10T02:11:39.421+01:00I have just finished reading Woods' book.
It ...I have just finished reading Woods' book.<br /><br />It really is unreadably bad. A mish-mash of anecdotes, clichés and catchphrases presented as political analysis. <br /><br />Compare it to, for example, Ian Birchall's biography of Tony Cliff. That was a serious attempt to grapple critically with Cliff's political thinking and activity. <br /><br />Woods' book is, by comparison, hagiographic tripe. <br /><br />So Grant’s prediction that the 1987 stock-market crash signalled an impending collapse of global capitalism was, according to Woods, not a mistake of ‘method’ but only a mistake of ‘timing’. Only a mere 20 years later a devastating crisis of capitalism struck. Grant wins! Good grief.<br /><br />If Grant’s analysis in 1987 was so misguided, Woods’ argues, then why did those who claimed to have disagreed with him (such as Taaffe) consent to his views being published? <br /><br />What Woods’ neglects to mention is that Grant often threatened to resign if he did not get his own way on such matters and that such a public split in the context of the time would have greatly weakened Militant on the eve of the anti-poll tax struggle. <br /><br />The leadership around Taaffe, having indulged the cult of Grant as embodying the essence of ‘genuine Trotskyism’ (and having long embraced the Stalinist notion of the public infallibility of the party leadership which required that all disagreement be hidden from the rank-and-file) found itself in the position of having to publish Grant’s catastrophist nonsense.<br /><br />The way to have handled Grant’s dogmatic and damaging behaviour would have been to develop an open relationship between the leadership and a politically mature membership in which dealing with internal disputes was a routine part of party life that served to educate members and prevent elitist tendencies from emerging within the full-time leadership.<br /><br />In this context Grant’s megalomania could have been managed and Grant, if necessary, be removed. <br /><br />Instead, the leadership (Grant and Taaffe together) choose to depoliticise and infantilise the membership by cultivating the image of leadership infallibility in the context of which the membership could not be trusted to handle political disagreement.<br /><br />The logic of this behaviour led to a situation in 1991 where most members of Militant first heard of the split between Grant’s minority and Taaffe’s majority when they read about it in The Guardian.<br /><br />Mike<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52382959330649113912013-09-08T18:50:00.614+01:002013-09-08T18:50:00.614+01:00Reading 2,500 words on Ted Grant is enough to make...Reading 2,500 words on Ted Grant is enough to make anyone less-than-sharp. How do you think I felt after penning it?<br /><br />Weirdly, I've now got a taste for this sort of thing and find myself glancing interestedly at Woods & Grant's <i>Reason in Revolt</i>. This review has ruined me.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-32955419865127501542013-09-06T16:32:44.495+01:002013-09-06T16:32:44.495+01:00Although given that I is a vowel I can't imagi...Although given that I is a vowel I can't imagine what I meant to say there. I think I'll go for a lie down.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-48981745294314246542013-09-06T15:04:57.888+01:002013-09-06T15:04:57.888+01:00I didn't know he was originally Isaac Blank. O...I didn't know he was originally Isaac Blank. Off the cuff I can't think of anybody else whose name contains only three vowels and all of them A.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-61807941930125258822013-09-06T09:38:20.222+01:002013-09-06T09:38:20.222+01:00As it happens Heiko, I once met someone who joined...As it happens Heiko, I once met someone who joined the IMT on the strength of your Speakers' Corner efforts.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-68107420664411252282013-09-06T09:37:28.475+01:002013-09-06T09:37:28.475+01:00Bang on, Mike. Throughout the book Woods rails aga...Bang on, Mike. Throughout the book Woods rails against "Zinovievism' and the similar understanding of Leninism pushed by JP Cannon onto the Fourth International. And yet Militant, and Socialist Appeal/IMT subscribe to that very same model.<br /><br />Whatever you think about revolutionary politics (personally, I think their time has passed in the advanced capitalist nations), the one question the remaining Trotskyist groups have refused to subject to serious analysis is why they remain stubbornly small with barely any reach - up to and including the times political conditions were more benign. They're very good at decrying "objective conditions", but do not examine or even ask if they're doing politics the "right way".Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90523066367724894542013-09-06T09:29:41.570+01:002013-09-06T09:29:41.570+01:00Ah, Jim, Marx was quite clear which "Boney&qu...Ah, Jim, Marx was quite clear which "Boney" he was talking about, but I believe it was Trotsky who brought in the comparison with the original Napoleon. Or it might have been Grant, I'm not sure. Like Napoleon, the expansion of Stalinism into Eastern Europe did overturn established capitalist (and where they persisted, feudal) relations. But a workers' state it did not make IMHO.<br /><br />You are right though, 'Bonapartism' as a concept is very, very useful. But it could do with a name change. Ditto <a href="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/its-time-to-junk-imperialism.html" rel="nofollow">with imperialism</a>.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-78666276188022683862013-09-05T23:48:01.471+01:002013-09-05T23:48:01.471+01:00Funny enough Ted used to love coming to Speakers&#...Funny enough Ted used to love coming to Speakers' Corner and spoke there for at least a decade himself in the 1930s and 40s. Heikohttp://www.karlmarx.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-88401255482412787182013-09-05T17:11:17.040+01:002013-09-05T17:11:17.040+01:00I tend to view the USSR not as a deformed workers ...I tend to view the USSR not as a deformed workers state but as a deformed capitalist state. Workers got up in the morning, with only their labour power to sell, they produced more than they themselves required to live on and the surplus was appropriated by a group other than the workers.<br /><br />It wasn't a transition because the social relations were self reproducing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-61842190978828965112013-09-05T15:49:49.380+01:002013-09-05T15:49:49.380+01:00I met Grant in his last few years, he lived In Rom...I met Grant in his last few years, he lived In Romford, the epitame of Tatcherite Working class Tory Britain,johnpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03978755044345580501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-12255265194782891902013-09-05T12:46:46.886+01:002013-09-05T12:46:46.886+01:00Grant was regarded with genuine affection by many ...Grant was regarded with genuine affection by many Militants in the 1970s and 1980s. Although when I saw him speak in the 1980s the standing ovations he routinely received at rallies said more about the respect we held for his lifetime of commitment than his grasp of the complex dynamics of class politics in Thatcher's Britain. <br /><br />To the extent that Militant grasped those dynamics (which, on reflection, I don't think it really did) much of the analysis and development of strategy was conducted by Taaffe.<br /><br />What was Grant's lasting contribution?<br /><br />Well, within the thin and fractious milieux of post-war Trotskyism he acknowledged and analysed post-war growth sooner than most.<br /><br />But should recognising reality really be cause for such celebration? It says much about the deeply dogmatic and self-referential nature of Trotskyist sub-cultures that many think it is.<br /><br />But Grant was a deeply sectarian operator and his lasting legacy is a form of politics that was and remains cultish in its contempt for anyone who rejected his particular interpretation of Marxism. <br /><br />This was not limited to Grant himself. CWI and Militant documents in the 1970s and 1980s routinely referred to 'the Marxists' when discussing the activity of CWI sections. Only CWI members warranted this designation - all others were not worthy, rendered impure or corrupt by their petit-bourgeois origins and preoccupations.<br /><br />So what are we to make of the life of Ted Grant today? My view: interesting, but irrelevant to the future of Marxism as a creative and inclusive form of politics.<br /><br />Mike Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-67355326783784585742013-09-05T12:43:49.984+01:002013-09-05T12:43:49.984+01:00I only saw a PDF, but I believe it is.
One thing ...I only saw a PDF, but I believe it is.<br /><br />One thing I missed out from the review was mention of Militant's infamous sectarianism, one that has carried down to the IMT and CWI to this day.<br /><br />This wasn't only rooted in their mutual 'ourselves, alone' nonsense but in the early experiences Grant had with other trends in the Trotskyist movement. Just because the account provided by Woods is one-sided doesn't mean other trends were awful. Militant's predecessor groups were burned by factional opponents and unprincipled fusions because it appeared they were always longing for the short cut. They weren't interested in the nitty gritty of hard work over long periods of time building a revolutionary tendency required.<br /><br />It would probably be fair to say that criticism is as true of many Trotskyist trends today as it was back then.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-63112535320496915202013-09-05T12:41:12.326+01:002013-09-05T12:41:12.326+01:00Thanks for this. Very enjoyable.
Re: Bonapartism....Thanks for this. Very enjoyable.<br /><br />Re: Bonapartism. Agreed. A useful concept and a terrible term.<br /><br />There's a very large disjunction between the things people associate with Bonapart (like invading Russia or having a big hat and putting your hand in your shirt) and the phenomenon it attempts to describe.<br /><br />The idea that a political revolution (or coup) can be a response to *maintain* the status quo when the elites are too weak to maintain their status in the normal way is a pretty powerful concept when we would normally be drawn to seeing a coup or social upheaval ushering in a new, distinct regime as a huge change.<br /><br />It's a sign of how out of touch "marxist" circles are when they use this term when the twentieth century provides so many examples far closer to anything that happens now than Napoleon's shenanigans.<br /><br />Pinochet, musharif in Pakistan or the colonels in Greece, are likely to provide better parallels than napoleon who, all credit to him, was pretty exceptional.Jim Jeppshttp://jimjepps.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-51867969597118302332013-09-05T12:05:24.240+01:002013-09-05T12:05:24.240+01:00Another book to add to the growing list of far lef...Another book to add to the growing list of far left biographies. Who published this? Is it the IMT's Wellred press?Evanhttp://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com