Mamdani, Grant & the Illusion of Immediacy: Revolutionary Voluntarism & Organizational Failure in the ‘Revolutionary Communist International’

The RCI Completes its Break with Ted Grant

On a seemingly ordinary social media thread, a profound theoretical confrontation emerged that crystallized the fundamental contradictions within groups like the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) in Canada and the ‘Revolutionary Communist International’ it is part of. Ben Marenlensky’s assertion that a revolution is defined by masses gaining the “driver’s seat of history” sparked a critical debate with Eric Fernández, who challenged whether non-socialist transformations could truly be called revolutions.

This exchange was more than an academic exercise. It exposed the deep-seated theoretical confusion that has come to characterize the RCI, an organization that transformed from the International Marxist Tendency to the Revolutionary Communist International – a metamorphosis that would prove more than merely nominal.

Corey Ansel’s sardonic comment cut to the heart of the matter: “Third Period Alan Woodsism” – a characterization that demands careful historical unpacking.

II. The Strategic Fetishism of Immediate Revolution

The RCI embodies what the early Comintern critiqued as catastrophic voluntarism: a persistent belief that revolutionary transformation is perpetually imminent, necessitating constant, frenetic, and often ill-prepared “action.”

Their approach fundamentally misreads the core Marxist understanding of revolutionary strategy. As Lenin stressed, the path to revolutionary victory requires a sober assessment of class strength. The essential work of a revolutionary minority is patient propaganda, understanding that proletarian revolution “can become a reality only if the proletarian class struggle culminates in a gigantic process, stretching out over years and decades”.

Consider the organization’s recent rhetorical excesses. Ben Marenlensky’s critique highlights their systematic misrepresentation of revolutionary potential. The RCP repeatedly declares “revolution is around the corner,” most recently misinterpreting a leaked RCMP report about civil unrest as a harbinger of imminent revolutionary transformation.

This tendency is not merely a theoretical error but a profound organizational pathology. The RCP (like the IMT) systematically mischaracterize various social movements:

• Painting the rise of the Chavez government in Venezuela as a revolution, rather than a bureaucratization which defeated Chavismo-from-below

• Misinterpreting the ideologically Khomeinist Green movement in Iran as a revolutionary moment

• Arguing that support for Trump’s anti-immigrant policies reflects class anger (when it actually demonstrates ruling-class manipulation of working-class frustrations)

• Misrepresenting pro-Russian nationalist forces in Eastern Ukraine as authentic expressions of working-class resistance or anti-imperialist struggle, when this support largely stems from opportunistic local elites, and Kremlin-backed authoritarianism, not grassroots socialist aspirations

III. The Sectarian Rejection of Tactical Flexibility

Joel Bergman’s categorical statement – “no, we will never support someone running for the Democrats” – epitomizes the organization’s strategic bankruptcy. This absolute abstentionism violates fundamental principles of revolutionary tactics.

---

The Dialectics of Electoral Engagement: Beyond Sectarian Abstentionism

The RCP’s categorical abstention from the Mamdani radicalization represents a fundamental misunderstanding of revolutionary strategy. In contrast, Solidarity’s analysis of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign provides a nuanced framework for how socialists should approach electoral politics.

The key is not to campaign about Mamdani’s electoral efforts, but to transform electoral momentum into lasting working-class self-organization. As the “Beyond the Ballot Box” analysis argues, Mamdani’s 50,000+ volunteers represent a massive organizing opportunity that should be strategically redirected:

Constructive Socialist Alternatives

1. Workplace Organizing
   Instead of sectarian criticism, socialists should view campaign volunteers as potential workplace organizers. The extensive contact network could be transformed into workplace committees targeting key sectors of the local economy.

2. Tenant Solidarity
   Campaign platforms like rent freezes can become the basis for building tenant unions capable of direct action. Rather than waiting for institutional implementation, socialists can create independent organizing structures that directly challenge landlord power.

3. Community Defense
   Rather than simply critiquing electoral candidates, socialists can build community defense networks that provide concrete alternatives to existing institutional structures, creating independent working-class power.

4. Political Independence
   The goal is to use electoral moments to demonstrate the viability of independent socialist politics, preparing for future campaigns on explicitly socialist ballot lines.

Ernest Mandel’s analysis provides the theoretical framework. Revolutionary organizations must be capable of both “conquest of the masses” and “revolutionary initiative,” avoiding the trap of becoming mere campaign specialists or abstract propagandists.

The fundamental error of both sectarian abstentionism and uncritical electoral engagement is the same: failing to transform momentary political energy into lasting working-class organization. As our analysis notes, successful revolutionary leadership requires developing the dialectic of overcoming partial positions – preventing electoral and revolutionary wings from becoming permanent, isolated factions.

Brandler’s United Front policy from 1921-1922 offers a historical model. He engaged in mass work “not in an excessively sectarian manner,” but “in a reasonable manner, taking support on the immediate demands of workers” while simultaneously building independent revolutionary capacity.

The RCP’s approach – to focus their fire on Mamdani for running as a Democrat rather than on building united front unity – is as misguided as uncritical electoral cretinism. The correct approach is strategic engagement that:

• Maintains political independence

• Builds working-class organizational capacity

• Transforms electoral momentum into direct organizing

• Creates structures for ongoing working-class struggle

Socialists must see electoral campaigns not as ends in themselves, but as potential moments for expanding working-class consciousness and organization. The goal is not to critique from the sidelines or to get lost in electoral machinery, but to use these moments to build independent revolutionary capacity.

---

The United Front tactic emerges as a critical strategic tool – not a compromise, but a sophisticated method of “uniting working-class forces despite political differences.” By categorically refusing engagement, the RCP demonstrates what Lenin condemned as “fleeing the fight” – a profound lack of confidence in its own ideas dressed up as ultraleftism. The RCI’s vile provocation against the feminist march in Rome, where they incited their own exclusion rather than march under one of the progressive demands of the women’s movement, echoes the worst traditions of 20th-century Italian Stalinism’s hostility to the movements for women’s equality.

Harry Liang’s Facebook comment reveals the organization’s self-delusion. Claiming “principled Leninist flexibility,” the RCP demonstrates remarkable inflexibility. Their previous entryism into the NDP had acknowledged the necessity of working within existing mass movements, yet they’ve abandoned this nuanced approach.

IV. Organizational Degeneration: From Democratic Centralism to Administrative Cult

The internal life of the RCP reveals a critical organizational pathology: the “domination of the administrative concept of the revolutionary organization.”

Where the Bolshevik tradition was characterized by the “struggle of factions” and the “full right of tendency,” the organization has transformed into an administrative apparatus that systematically suppresses internal critique. This becomes painfully evident in their social media practices.

A telling example emerged in a recent Facebook exchange. Ben Marenlensky noted that Joel Bergman, the de facto leader of the Canadian section, deleted comments critical of the organization. When challenged, Bergman’s defenders argued this was just a personal account – a transparent attempt to deflect substantive critique.

Samuel Eric’s incisive question captures the deviation perfectly: “Do they think the Bolsheviks would have deleted Martov’s comments or would they have wrestled with them?”

The historical documents warn against what Frank identified as the risk of “systematic spreading of slander to discredit dissidents” and using “administrative measures to decisively influence the outcome of debates.” The RCP embodies this precise organizational degeneration.

V. The Theoretical Roots: Grantism and Its Contemporary Manifestations

The RCP’s errors are not isolated but represent an evolving manifestation of what Frank’s historical analysis would term “Grantism” – a tendency characterised by theoretical rigidity and a mechanical approach to revolutionary strategy, quite distinct from Ted Grant himself, who, while cautiously defending his prior theoretical positions, displayed a restless hunger for new information and the continual development of strategy and tactics.

The organization’s transformation from Fightback to the RCP – part of the International Marxist Tendency’s global rebranding – symbolizes a deeper retreat from the democratic traditions of revolutionary organization, even when measured by the often-imperfect internal democracy found in post-war Trotskyisms. Catherine Crockett’s observation is particularly cutting: the group seems more concerned with shedding accountability for internal scandals than pursuing principled political development.

VI. Rapture-Exhaustion and Revolutionary Potential

Don Wren’s sardonic Facebook comment about “rapture-exhaustion” captures a critical organizational dynamic. The RCP operates as what critics describe as a “human meat grinder wasting good people” through a consistent cycle of burnout and demoralization.

Jay Woodruff’s observation is equally telling: “People find relevance, power, and financial benefits to leading movements, once that happens they will actively slow the movement to maximize their gains.”

Radhika Vimla’s experience with the organization’s predecessor, Fightback, is revealing. Her assessment that they are “very delusional” speaks to a deeper organizational malaise – a disconnection from the actual conditions and consciousness of the working class.

Conclusion: Beyond Sectarian Illusion

Revolutionary strategy is not a matter of revolutionary enthusiasm, but of careful, concrete analysis. As the historical documents of the Communist International remind us, it is “very important to critically examine one’s own errors.”

The RCP represents a cautionary tale – an organization that has transformed the rich tradition of revolutionary Marxism into a sterile, self-referential sect. Their trajectory illuminates crucial truths about revolutionary organization:

1. Patient propaganda trumps performative radicalism

2. Tactical flexibility is not a compromise but a strategic necessity

3. Internal democracy is the lifeblood of revolutionary organization

4. Revolutionary potential is destroyed, not advanced, by administrative repression

The path forward requires a return to the fundamental principles articulated by Lenin and developed through the Comintern’s strategic debates: patient propaganda, tactical flexibility, and a commitment to winning the majority of the working class through genuine, concrete engagement.

In the end, the RCP has become the very obstacle to the revolutionary transformation it claims to seek – a testament to the enduring relevance of Lenin’s warning that revolutionary organizations must be schools of strategic thinking, not administrative machines that consume their own militants.

---

Appendix: The RCI Completes its Break with Ted Grant

The RCI is one of the tendencies that traces its roots to Ted Grant’s current, which withdrew from the Fourth International in 1965 but remained closer to the FI than to other Trotskyist currents. Grant’s approach was far from a mechanical strategy, but it placed a huge emphasis on work inside the unions and entrism in the mass workers parties. Julian Innerhofer’s comment provides a crucial insight: even the entry tactic was “always just tactical,” adapting to specific historical conditions. This stands in stark contrast to the RCP’s current dogmatic approach.

As noted in Ted Grant Selected Works, Volume 2 (TGWS2), Grant shows that the idea of orienting to mass organizations might seem “mundane or even ‘boring’” to some, but it was “in fact the most revolutionary lever there is.” The fundamental aim was clear: “Before conquering power, it was first necessary to conquer the masses. That is the essential meaning of Lenin’s policy in the nine months leading up to the October overturn.”

Key principles of Grant’s methodology included:

1. Absolute confidence in the working class

2. Urgent need to build revolutionary cadres

3. Consistent, nuanced engagement with mass organizations

4. Patient propaganda over revolutionary posturing

Theoretical Roots: The Bankruptcy of “Revolution Around the Corner”

The RCP’s approach embodies a fundamental misunderstanding of revolutionary strategy. Where Grant emphasized patient propaganda and concrete analysis, the current leadership promotes a catastrophic voluntarism that:

• Declares “revolution is around the corner” based on minimal evidence

• Mischaracterizes non-revolutionary movements as revolutionary

• Creates a cycle of perpetual disappointment and militant burnout

Feargal McGovern’s critique highlights this tendency, noting how the organization “grossly exaggerated the strikes in France” and fails to provide a nuanced analysis of working-class movements.

The Dialectic of Mass Work and Revolutionary Initiative

Our articles “United Front Work, not Propagandism, is Key to Revolutionary Agitation” and “Beyond the Ballot Box” provide crucial insight into the strategic failures of ultraleft Trotskyists. These texts emphasize the critical importance of:

• Engaging with actual working-class formations

• Transforming electoral energy into organizational strength

• Maintaining revolutionary independence while participating in broader struggles

The RCP has inverted this approach, creating an organizational model that:

• Rejects tactical engagement

• Substitutes performative radicalism for strategic work

• Isolates revolutionary militants from actual working-class movements

Historical Parallels: The Danger of Sectarian Deviation

The RCP’s trajectory is not unique in revolutionary history. Grant understood the dangers of sectarian deviation intimately. He understood that revolutionary strategy is not about finding miraculous shortcuts but about the patient work of winning the majority of the working class to a revolutionary perspective.

Grant, in our view, bent that stick too far, neglecting the importance of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements in the developing world. His commitment to internal democracy was often limited, reflecting the top-down norms of the labour movement and his astonishing view that he alone was sufficient as theorist for the movement (see his 1982 interview with Sam Bornstein). Nevertheless, the success of the Militant Tendency under Grant’s leadership provides a stark contrast to the RCP’s current approach.

Militant demonstrated how with “program, methods, and ideas, combined with a flexible approach to the traditional workers’ political parties, the unions, elections, and the youth, a small group can grow rapidly.”

The tragedy of the Militant’s subsequent decline – driven by leadership’s belief that it could “build a mass revolutionary party outside the Labour Party” in the conditions of the 1990s – is a small shadow of the RCP’s current strategic bankruptcy.

Conclusion: A Revolutionary Tradition Betrayed

The RCP’s trajectory represents more than an organizational failure. It symbolizes a broader crisis of revolutionary strategy – the transformation of a nuanced, dialectical approach into a rigid, self-defeating sectarianism.

Ted Grant’s core beliefs remain indispensable:

• Revolutionary strategy requires patient engagement with working-class consciousness

• Tactical flexibility is not a compromise but a revolutionary necessity

• Internal democracy is the lifeblood of revolutionary organization.