Bill Hunter’s Lifelong Apprenticeship – A Criticism

A review of Bill Hunter, Lifelong Apprenticeship: The Life and Times of a Revolutionary (Porcupine Press, 1997).

ILL HUNTER first came into contact with ment must have engendered; his persistence and BTrotskyists in 1939 through Harry Wicks’ and refusal to accept defeat. The second is his refusal Hugo Dewar’s group which had originated as a to face up to the basic reason for the failure of any left opposition in the Communist Party. He has of the various Fourth Internationalist factions to remained a Trotskyist to this day in various develop a mass following in any of the advanced organisations – the Independent Labour Party, capitalist countries. the Workers International League and then the Hunter attempts to explain this failure whilst Revolutionary Communist Party. He was a refusing to question the basic correctness of the member of the Majority in the RCP, but when it Fourth International’s perspectives and rejecting dissolved in 1949 he was amongst those who any revising of the basic Leninist (and Trotskyist) fused with Gerry Healy’s “Club” – the old RCP theory of the terminal crisis of capitalism. In my Minority who had entered the Labour Party two opinion, his defence of orthodox Trotskyism is not years earlier. From then on, Hunter worked in convincing because he refuses to deal with the close collaboration with Healy right through central question – to re-examine critically this basic the transformation of the Club into the Socialist assumption of terminal crisis and revolutionary Labour League and then the Workers Revol- upsurge on which all the perspectives, policies and utionary Party until its implosion and expulsion activities of the Fourth Internationalists were of Healy in 1985. This book, the first of two based, and continue to be based. volumes, takes us up to the formation of the SLL The concept of the terminal crisis of capitalism in 1959. entailed that production had reached a ceiling As well as a history of the development of these above which it could not rise, thus leading to ever- organisations and their relations to the broader deepening slumps. It was accepted that economic labour movement in Britain and internationally, revivals were possible, but these would be short- it is also a record of Bill Hunter’s personal lived. The general trend would be downward. involvement, both in the internal disputes in these Increasing competition between the imperialist organisations and also of his activities as an powers would lead to war. Even if war did not industrial militant in the engineering industry as unleash proletarian revolution, the subsequent a shop steward and convenor. He vividly describes postwar continued decay of capitalism would the wartime struggles to defend conditions in ensure continued revolutionary upheavals. In which Trotskyists and other trade union militants these struggles, the Stalinist and social democratic had to fight not only the bosses but the right- misleaders would be exposed, and the Trotskyists wing trade union leaders and the Communist Party would build mass revolutionary parties. workers who, from the moment Russia was These were the perspectives which Bill Hunter involved in the war, adopted class collaboration and I and all those who joined the movement in policies, opposed strikes, and attacked Hunter and the 1930s accepted. They turned out to be only other Trotskyists as disrupters and “agents of partially confirmed. The war did break out, Hitler”. causing mass slaughter, immense destruction and Several things stand out in Hunter’s book. The misery. It did create revolutionary situations in first is his unswerving commitment to Trotskyism, Italy, France, Belgium, Yugoslavia, etc. The war and his tenacity in overcoming obstacles and did generate a rising wave of struggles for national countering the undoubted frustration that the liberation in the colonial countries, which forced continued failure of the movement to break out of imperialism to retreat and grant formal its marginalisation and develop into a mass move- independence. All this is true, as Bill Hunter is at

72 pains to point out. He also defends the Trotskyists in post-liberation France, Belgium and Italy were from their critics by pointing out that even bour- greatly helped by the socialist and communist geois theorists and politicians were themselves parties which joined or supported the coalition very worried about the future of capitalism and governments and curbed strikes. But is this a the threat of revolution. sufficient explanation? After all, in 1938, the But – and this is a big but – capitalism survived Fourth International was predicting that the social the war and the near-revolutionary crises at its democrats and Stalinists would act precisely as end, and recovered to enjoy an unprecedented they did. And they also predicted that these period of growth. How explain this? There are “betrayals” would “expose” these misleaders and several possible explanations. One is that we were – given the continuing worsening of conditions – mistaken in our basic assumption about the the masses would turn away from these terminal crisis of capitalism and its inability to misleaders, and the Trotskyists would be able to expand the productive forces. Personally, I think break out of isolation and win a mass following. this explanation is valid. It explains why In addition to discounting the possibility of capitalism was able to dampen the revolutionary economic recovery, the Fourth International thrust in postwar Europe by making concessions; dismissed any possibility of the survival of by conceding improved wages and conditions, by bourgeois-democratic regimes. The Revolutionary social welfare measures, housing, health, pensions, Communist Party declared at its 1945 conference: etc. Of course, it was helped in this by the social “Only if the series of revolutions fails can the democratic and trade union leaders and the policy bourgeoisie hope to save its system once again by gyrations of the Stalinist communist parties. But resorting to a neo-fascism of monstrous reaction the basic reason was the ability of the working class and repression.” These predictions were false. to continue to win improvements and reforms. Not only did the bourgeois-democratic regimes The perspectives of the founding conference of the survive – although precariously – the immediate Fourth International deemed this impossible. post-war period up until 1948 (helped, as Hunter Bill Hunter ignores all the evidence. For points out, by social democracy and Stalinism), example, that by 1964 the gross national products but consolidated themselves after 1948. Again one of Germany had increased by 220 per cent, of must ask, could this have happened if capitalism France by 135 per cent, of Italy by 132 per cent, – as Hunter insists – was in terminal crisis? Whilst and of Holland by 152 per cent, compared to the admitting some errors, Hunter nevertheless fails last prewar year of 1938. Between 1953 and 1965, to face up to this. It was all due to the Stalinist real wages rose by 36 per cent in the United betrayals, and the weakness and mistakes of the Kingdom, by 58 per cent in France, by 80 per cent Trotskyists. in Italy, and by 100 per cent in West Germany. In He continues: “What of the RCP leaders? They Germany, just recovering from the war, real hourly were correct in referring to a democratic counter- wages were in 1948 at the level of 1914. But they revolution and in criticising a minority perspective trebled in the next 15 years. (Walter Laqueur, of a slump worse than 1931. But already some of Europe in Our Time.) the RCP leaders were attributing the economic Hunter will probably reply that to quote these developments and reforms to capitalism’s strength figures is to be impressionistic or empirical. His and were thus minimising the role of Stalinist and picture of reality ignores embarrassing empirical social democratic leaders. To be sure there was a facts. He writes: “We lived – and still live – in an ‘democratic phase’ in Europe. To be sure there was epoch of the decay of capitalism. I have answered an economic uplift, following the defeat of the here those who try to pin on Trotsky and revolutionary upsurges.... The possibility of more Trotskyism an error in believing this, and have stable economic relations, however, arose and was shown that fear about the collapse of the system maintained out of class and political relations and its democratic institutions was widespread at established as a result of the treacherous working- the end of the Second World War and was not a class leaderships which checked, diverted and Trotskyist fantasy” (p.402). “Our expectations of defeated the upsurges of the working class” (p.213). a revolutionary crisis coming out of the war were Of course, the survival or overthrow of absolutely vindicated” (p.182). bourgeois rule is not a question of economics What, then, is his explanation for the failure alone. Even in the worst economic conditions, of these revolutionary crises to develop into actual capitalism will not collapse automatically. It will revolutions, and the failure of the Trotskyists to still have to be overturned politically. Similarly, build mass revolutionary parties? How does he economic recovery alone did not, of itself and explain capitalism’s survival of the revolutionary automatically, restore parliamentary regimes in threats of 1943-48 and its continued expansion post-liberation and postwar France, Belgium, thereafter? According to him, it was all due to the Italy, etc. This arose as a result of the political betrayals of the masses by the social democrats interplay of social forces. In this sense, Hunter is and Stalinists. correct. But to fail to ignore the fact that the It is true that the survival of the shaky regimes continued economic strength of capitalism, the

73 “base”, had little effect on the “superstructure” is previous reformist commitments, and were surprising from some one who claims to be an pushing in the direction of more vigorous reformism. orthodox Marxist. Hunter mentions the Marshall Of course, “reform” and “revolution” are not Plan. Undoubtedly the Marshall Plan was mutually exclusive. And, if sufficiently radical, motivated by the USA’s fear of European “reforms” are part of the transition to socialism. capitalism’s collapse and the threat of communism But the Trotskyist concept that Hunter defends – – and it was a major factor in Europe’s recovery. that the struggle for reforms, or “transitional But would the Marshall Plan and its success have demands” which cannot be achieved under been possible if capitalism (including US capitalism, necessarily leads to revolutionary capitalism) had indeed been in terminal crisis, if consciousness and revolutionary struggle – is capitalism had indeed already become an absolute highly debatable. I have attempted to tackle this fetter on the expansion of the productive forces? problem in various articles in New Interventions and Another fault in Hunter’s account is his failure elsewhere. to explain the continued hold of reformism, and Hunter fails to see that the whole period from the Trotskyists’ failure to win the workers away 1948 until the 1970s was one of capitalist from it, even when they were seriously attempting expansion throughout Western Europe, of full to relate to workers’ existing concerns. Seeking employment and rising living standards. He some justification from me, Bill Hunter quotes rightly points out that the working class was full approvingly my defence, in Reluctant Revolutionary, of self-confidence, it had not been defeated since of the Club’s strategies and policies in the Labour before the war, it was militant. But its self- Party in the 1950s – particularly the demands we confidence and militancy in this period of rising were formulating in Socialist Outlook. Hunter says: prosperity, during which it was successful in “Ratner goes on to show that the attempt had to building up its shop stewards organisation and be made to deal with the actual questions around rank-and-file movements, did not lead to a which the workers or their advance guard, were qualitative transformation of its consciousness prepared to struggle. The Trotskyists were from reformist to revolutionary. Its confidence therefore helping to develop consciousness against was reformist, directed at winning better conditions reformism” (p.172, my emphasis). at work, higher wages, etc. But Hunter does not quote the passages just As I pointed out in my postscript to Reluctant before and after this extract. If he had, it would Revolutionary: “The immense gap between the have been clear that I was saying that, though general political consciousness (or lack of it) of these campaigns by the Club were correct, they the broad labour movement and our own ideology did not flow from the Club’s erroneous meant that whatever the strategy or tactics we perspectives of deepening capitalist crisis adopted – within the Labour Party or outside it – generating increasingly revolutionary struggles, our success was limited. It is not without but were rather a pragmatic adaptation by the significance that it was precisely when we [the Club to the existing situation. In the passage Bill Healy tendency] were, according to our critics, did not quote, I went on to say: “The situation in trying to camouflage ourselves as good Labour 1949-50 was that there was an economic boom, Party members and left social democrats, that we full employment and no mass radicalisation. This had our greatest successes” (p.249). was the situation as it was – not as we pictured it Elsewhere in his book, Hunter is – rightly – at the time. In fact, the policies and activities we concerned with revolutionaries’ relation to and actually adopted did not flow from our apocalyptic integration with workers in their struggles. perspectives, but were a pragmatic adaptation to Hunter’s record as a shop steward and convenor, existing reality.” (Reluctant Revolutionary, p.134.) and his participation in struggles in the All the struggles on the industrial front that engineering industry at Chryslers during the war, Hunter mentions never developed beyond and at the ENV factory in Willesden after the war, attempts by the workers to improve conditions is something to be proud of. At Chryslers, he within the framework of capitalism. The demands obviously won the support and confidence of the of the activists and left wingers in the Labour workers. But this was both because of and despite Party never went beyond demands that the his being a revolutionary Marxist. The workers Labour Party should go faster and more appreciated his defence of workers’ conditions and vigorously along the road of 1945, that is, a his fearless opposition to the bosses despite peaceful transformation of society in a socialist disagreeing with his revolutionary views. But one direction through parliamentary means, of the reasons he was such a good shop steward supplemented by campaigning from below. Far was because he was personally motivated by his from their demands on the Labour leadership – commitment to revolutionary Marxism. And this demands which Socialist Outlook took up – helping is the contradiction. Despite their support for him to develop consciousness against reformism, as Bill as a shop steward, how many of the several Hunter imagined and hoped, they were in fact thousand workers at Chryslers and ENV were directed against the Labour Party’s retreat from won to revolutionary Marxism? Maybe he

74 recruited a few more than I did in my years as a spurred on by these same revolutionary masses; shop steward in Manchester. As I pointed out, both discounted the possibility of capitalist this was a measure of the yawning gap between stabilisation. After accusing his opponents of our revolutionary Marxism and the political con- “capitulating to Stalinism” and predicting that the sciousness of the workers – a gap we were unable Soviet workers would, as Trotsky had asserted, to bridge. In many of the interventions and bar the road to capitalist restoration by routing participation by Trotskyists in industrial struggles the bureaucracy, Healy ended his life hailing recounted by Hunter in this book – on the docks, Gorbachev’s perestroika as “the highest point” in the mines, building industry, engineering reached by the world revolution! factories, in the ETU, etc – we did occasionally Those awaiting from Bill Hunter an achieve modest successes, but nowhere were we explanation of this and of how the internal regime able to establish a long-term influence. Nowhere in the SLL and the WRP degenerated, and how were more than a handful of workers won to the latter imploded, will have to wait until the revolutionary politics. second volume Hunter has promised. The present Hunter devotes two chapters to Pabloism and book, Volume 1, ends in 1959. Bill Hunter several the 1953 split in the Fourth International in which times dismisses critics of Trotskyism as academics he played a prominent role as one of Healy’s or bystanders not motivated by the desire to staunchest supporters. Space does not allow me improve effective participation in the struggle. to deal with this, except to say, with admittedly Many of those who will criticise this book did the benefit of hindsight, that both sides were participate in the struggle – and many probably wrong because both based themselves on a still do. This critic fought side by side with Bill mistaken analysis of the nature of the epoch. Healy Hunter during the whole period described in this and Hunter saw the immediate future as one volume. I share with him the desire that lessons dominated by the collapse of capitalism and the be learnt that will help save future generations of rise of a revolutionary working class. The activists from banging their heads against brick “Pabloites” shared the same mistaken view of walls – doing more damage to their heads than to terminal crisis, but combined war and revolution, the wall. Unfortunately, Bill seems to want to and were wrong about the potential of Stalinist continue in the same old way. There must be better parties to give birth to revolutionary currents ways of working for a better society!

75