Aspects
of the SWP Experience 1960–1980
by Gus Horowitz
|
[The following is a talk presented by Gus Horowitz to a Conference on the Legacy of Leon Trotsky and U.S. Trotskyism, held at the Bronx campus of Fordham University in New York City July 25–27, 2008. This talk was part of a panel discussing “Lessons of the SWP Experience: 1960–1980.” The three panelists each had twenty minutes.] [This is the original text, lightly edited. During extemporaneous delivery of the actual speech some phrases may have been added, modified, or omitted.]
I will take up three
points:
1.
The impact of the events of the 1960s
radicalization on our ideas.
2.
The impact of the Fourth International on the
SWP.
3.
The role of the 1960s leadership generation, and
in particular Jack Barnes.
The Impact of Events on Our Ideas In the early 1960s we
all looked to the 1930s radicalization for inspiration, especially to the great
labor and trade union struggles of that period. |
Gus Horowitz |
But the 1960s
radicalization unfolded differently than was expected, differently than what
had been understood in traditional Marxist theory.
We were influenced by
the Cuban revolution and by the other colonial revolutions which were still
going strong at the time. But the colonial revolutions took place, not in the
industrially developed world, not even in the less developed parts of the
industrial world, but in some of the least developed areas.
We were influenced by
the Black struggle in the American South for civil rights, which began in the
late 1950s and which was followed in the 1960s by the rise of struggles and
Black nationalism in both North and South. While the
participants in the Black struggle were themselves for the most part working
class, the issues of the struggle were generally not labor issues per se,
but issues of democratic rights.
We owed a lot in our
understanding of these events, and how they could be fit into Marxist theory,
to two leaders of the older generation: Joe Hansen and
But the enrichment of
these ideas, and the application of the same kind of approach to new
developments, was largely the work of the 1960s generation.
The driving force of the
radicalization in the latter 1960s was the anti–Vietnam-war movement, whose key
component was the students.
Students also raised
important specifically student issues. Students, we should note, were now a
significantly more populous element than in earlier periods, outnumbering
farmers significantly.
In the late 1960s and
early 1970s we saw the rise of the women’s movement, the Chicano and other
Latino struggles, the gay liberation movement, and the development of a whole
series of challenges to the old order on cultural issues.
How to fit these new
challenges into the corpus of Marxist theory?
In the summer of 1970 we
held the first of our Oberlin,
I would like to read a
few passages from this introduction, because it conveys a bit of the flavor of
our thinking during those times.
There is questioning and
rejection of the myriad social institutions and forms of ideological
backwardness and prejudice serving to prop up the outmoded order. This is a
feature, to one degree or another, of the women’s liberation movement, the
movements of oppressed nationalities, the student movement, the revolution in
culture and many other aspects of the current radicalization…These struggles
are part of, forms of, or potentially allied to the general class struggle of
the working masses against the capitalist system.
The ability to see this
feature of the current radicalization, to see it within the framework of basic
Marxist concepts, and to orient to it on that basis demonstrates the richness
and viability of the Marxist method…
Social reality is
complex and uneven. In the
These have become
instruments for upholding the present system and cannot be eliminated within
its framework.
As a result, the coming American revolution will have to accomplish an entire
range of historically overdue democratic tasks, as well as socialist tasks,
such as nationalization of industry under working-class control.
With this is mind, we
see that movements such as the women’s liberation movement, the struggles of
oppressed nationalities for self-determination, the gay liberation movement,
and the revolution in culture are a part of the general struggle against the
outmoded capitalist system…
These new movements are not unimportant or peripheral to the socialist
revolution, but at the center of its advance. [Emphasis
added.]
In retrospect, the Prospects
book was marred by an over-optimistic triumphalism
toward the real prospects for revolution in the
Later in the 1970s the
SWP also wrote better appreciations of the dynamics of working class struggles.
But I still believe that the essays in this book best captured the spirit of
the time as well as a deep appreciation of the new aspects of class struggle
that had come to the fore in the 1960s radicalization.
The new generation of
revolutionary fighters will have to reconquer these
Marxist analyses on its own. I hope that they will
look at the documents of the past with an objective eye, no matter what they
may think of the SWP of today.
The Impact of the Fourth International on the SWP
There are several
international groups, all claiming to represent the true heritage of the Fourth
International founded by Trotsky. The SWP was associated with the group
generally known by its leadership body, the United Secretariat. So, when I talk
about the Fourth International, this is what I mean.
We experienced a faction
fight in the Fourth International that lasted for nearly 10 years, from 1969 to
1977.
On one side was the IMT,
the International Majority Tendency, led by Ernest Mandel, Livio
Maitan, and the leaders of the French LCR (Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire). On the other side was the LTF, the
Leninist Trotskyist Faction, led by leaders of the
U.S. SWP. For a while the LTF also included Hugo Moreno.
I will discuss the
impact of this faction fight on the SWP.
Like all factional
struggles in all political organizations this one was marked by all sorts of
organizational fighting. I believe that there were injustices and justified
complaints on both sides. But it is not very productive to go into the details.
It is not very useful for new people seeking to gain insight and lessons.
Many of the
organizational issues were documented. For those who are interested, I would
advise you to read the documents in preference to listening to the horror
stories.
Remarkably, there was
not a split in the International as a whole, although we came close on a few
occasions.
As for the underlying
political issues, there were some
interesting discussions and debates. These centered initially on strategy and
tactics in
A review of these issues
could be of some use, even though, I think in retrospect that some of the
arguments were exaggerated due to the tension of the faction fight.
But from the vantage
point of today, I think most of the underlying political issues are only of
historical interest.
In looking back on it
all, from the vantage point of time and distance, I find that the impact of the
faction fight on the SWP is the most interesting aspect.
On balance, I think that
the impact was positive.
This may seem like a
surprising thing to say. I do not mean, of course, that faction fights are a
desirable thing, or that they are the preferred mode for political discussion.
So let me explain.
Like all Trotskyists, we in the SWP had always prided ourselves on
our internationalism. We thought about international events a lot, we wrote
about them a lot, and we took action where we could. It is not this aspect of
internationalism that I want to deal with here.
What I want to discuss
is our personal involvement in the
International.
For the earlier part of
the 1960s we didn’t have—at least most of us didn’t have—a good first-hand feel
for our own international movement.
There were important
international discussions in the early 1960s, and there was a major organizational
step—the reunification of the FI. But these involved Joe Hansen and later Ray
Sparrow/Art Sharon. These two comrades were based in
The fight that began in
1969 caused us, and especially the younger generation, to become very engaged
on a variety of levels: on the PC, on the general SWP leadership level, and on
the general membership level.
We attended discussions
and meetings overseas on a regular basis. This included regular participation
in meetings of the IEC (International Executive Committee) and the United Secretariat
as well as many informal discussions. These interchanges were mostly on the
Political Committee level, where some eight people were regularly involved, a
substantial part of that body. Larger meetings such as the IEC, which met every
year or two, or the World Congress, which met every 5–6 years, had a broader
participation from SWP leadership.
We conducted regular
visits and tours. These included attending conventions and central committee
meetings of other groups as well as many general visits. For the most part
these visits were simply a form of diplomacy, an attempt to win friends and
influence people.
We shared experiences
with our comrades in other countries. We explained the
Members of the SWP were
encouraged to make visits to other countries, and vice versa, comrades in other
countries were urged to come here and get acquainted with us. We found
that—whether it was Barcelona or Athens, Bogota or Sao Paulo, Bombay or
Tokyo—we were meeting young people, just like us, interested in many of the
same things, sharing somewhat similar outlooks on the world.
We turned our big summer
gatherings at
Of course we also spent
considerable time writing documents and arguing over ideas. This was an area
where the whole membership got involved. The
As
Barry Sheppard said in his book: “It was by far the most thoroughgoing
discussion that the SWP had ever had, more comprehensive, in fact, than any
group associated with the Fourth International and, I believe, more
comprehensive than any discussion held in any group on the left anywhere in the
world.”
To our credit, we
managed to translate the entire International Discussion and to circulate it
throughout the world. This helped raise awareness and involvement of the entire
world movement, since English was the most widely used language
As a result of our
efforts in this regard, the SWP membership was one of the most—perhaps the
most—well-informed and engaged of the larger groups in the Fourth
International.
Despite the fact that
the circumstance leading to this engagement was a faction fight, nevertheless
the involvement and engagement was a major positive value in itself.
Furthermore, there was influence in both directions. Even when
we argued sharply with comrades from other countries, even when we disparaged
some of the other groups’ modes of operation and organization—and they ours—we were forced into a
position of having to seriously consider what they had to say, and to observe
how they conducted themselves. The same for comrades from
other countries who came here.
This whole interchange
had a positive impact all around. It enriched our understanding of the world,
our understanding of Marxism, and our understanding of party building.
The SWP in the 1980s
turned away from the Fourth International, and lost the tempering effect of
these interchanges. This, in my opinion, was a big factor in the decline and
degeneration of the SWP.
The Role of Jack Barnes and the 1960s Leadership Generation
There has been in recent
years, a certain disparagement of the generation that joined the SWP and came
into prominence in the 1960s and early 1970s.
This perception is
undoubtedly due to the decline and degeneration of the SWP in the 1980s and after, and the fact that the 1960s leadership generation was
unable to reverse that decline and in fact, to our discredit, did not even
mount an effective challenge to that degeneration.
Nevertheless, the
failure of the 1980s and beyond should not detract from the fact that it was
the 1960s generation that did lead the party through the 1960s radicalization,
that did measure up to most of the challenges that it faced, and that does
deserve credit for the achievements that were made during that period.
Of the 1960s generation,
the outstanding personality was Jack Barnes.
In recent years is has
become common to hear people express the opinion, on internet discussion lists,
for example, to that effect that Jack Barnes was “hand-picked,” as if he and
others were not the natural and worthy leaders of that generation, but were
artificially catapulted over others into leadership positions.
I do not know where this
notion came from. It was certainly never expressed, as far as I know, by anyone
in the older SWP leadership during the 1960s and 1970s—not even by Frank
Lovell, who, I believe, used the term “hand-picked” in a document he wrote some
years later.
As I recall it, Frank
never said a word to this effect at any National Committee or other leadership
meeting at the time. Nor did
Frankly, the notion that
Jack Barnes was “hand-picked” seems preposterous
to me, especially since I knew him well for 20 years and worked with him in
an entire range of activities, including years before the time that he became a
national leader.
I have always thought
that Jack Barnes was, without question, the outstanding, most talented natural
leader who emerged from the 1960s generation. He led our work in a variety of
areas, and he was the main person of our generation who the others looked up to
for advice.
Naturally the older
generation encouraged him. Of course they gave him tasks and challenges that
tested his capabilities—tasks and challenges that he passed for the most part.
I fail to see how that can be called “hand-picking” him. What else were the
older leaders to do?
It was the great authority that Jack Barnes earned in the
1960s and 1970s that enabled him to play so big a part in turning things sour
in the 1980s and after.
But then, that was a different Jack Barnes
He was not without
serious flaws, some of which started to become clear in the mid- and late-1970s,
and became quite pronounced later on. I don’t think it is possible to fully
understand what went wrong without appreciating this factor, even if we do not
agree on how much weight to give it along with the more objective factors in
the decline of the SWP.
Those who look at the
SWP of today see an organization that is but a grotesque caricature of what it once was. And they see a leader of
that party—a person who is the object of international
scorn and scandal—who is also a grotesque caricature of what he once was.
Just
as the party has changed, so too Jack Barnes has changed.
Yes, there were signs
and precursors of what was to come. There was foreshadowing and some of us had
premonitions.
But in the 1960s and 1970s both the party and the leading people were for the most part different, and much better. How that changed, and why that changed, is a topic that should be examined in some detail. But it is a topic for another time.