As an exmember who left in 2012 after 44 years in is/swp I can say that it was never our goal to have members on union execs - we were always opposed to any strategy that focused on the bureaucracy rather than the rank and file. To us it was r&f vs bureaucracy rather than left v right within the bureaucracy. A sign of decay is the shift in this focus.
I'm a marxist influenced by Ernest Mandel in Brazil (but never joined the multiple sections here). I have no intent to defend the SWP. But this post seriously distorts the facts.
Ok, the Fourth International has real implantation in trade unions in France and Italy (mostly consequence of the 1970s struggles) but in no way this is the situation in most sections. Perharps the membership is divided between a majority of young people active in the new social movements and a minority of 70s veterans no longer in the workforce and the unions.
At the same time, the downturn analysis sadly still holds true in the imperialist countries. In no European country ler alone the United States the levels of unionization and strike action are higher than in the 90s (the heyday of Neo-liberalism). I doubt If Anti-capitalist Resistance has better trade union implantation than the SWP. Perharps it's even worse.
I think this post substitutes cheap political score-pointing for a concrete analysis of the situation
Rodrigo raises fair points that deserve a direct response. Let me clarify what I am and am not arguing.
I am not claiming that Fourth International sections universally enjoy better union implantation than the IST. They manifestly do not. The Brazilian section Rodrigo knows firsthand, the British section (Anti-capitalist Resistance and Ecosocialist Scotland), and many others have weaker workplace presence than even the diminished SWP. However, it's not clear to me that most workers joining the FI will not be unionised even if the demographic pattern he describes, young activists in social movements plus ageing veterans from the 1970s, applies across much of the revolutionary left internationally.
Nor am I disputing that objective conditions have deteriorated. Unionisation rates, strike days, shop steward density: all lower than the 1970s, often lower than the 1990s. Cliff's description of a downturn was accurate in many ways.
My argument is different. The downturn thesis is not just a description; it is an orientation that justified a strategic retreat. The SWP's response to changed conditions was to pull back from building an independent rank-and-file workplace organisation and to substitute executive-focused Broad Left politics. The reasoning ran: workers lack confidence, therefore we cannot build from below, therefore we must work through left officials and union structures. This was presented as tactical realism. In practice, it meant abandoning the strategic goal of creating independent working-class capacity outside and against the bureaucracy.
The Italian example is not "FI sections are better." It is: different strategic choices in comparable conditions produce different organisational capacities. Italian comrades chose to build within base unions and to concentrate on logistical chokepoints. That choice, made over decades, meant that when political strikes on Palestine became possible, they had the capacity to deliver them. The SWP's choice, executive lobbying in large unions, produced fifteen NEC seats and an inability to shift the Birmingham bin strike.
Rodrigo is right that this demands concrete analysis, not score-settling. But concrete analysis must include examining how theoretical frameworks shape strategic choices, and how those choices compound over decades into organisational realities.
P.S. There are not multiple sections of the Fourth International in Brazil. There is one section, which is inside the PSOL, the Socialism and Liberty Party. The section contains different tendencies that collectively publish Inprecor Brazil (https://inprecor-br.org/) and individually operate as public currents in the PSOL.
As a member of a USFI-section in another country "membership is divided between a majority of young people active in the new social movements and a minority of 70s veterans no longer in the workforce and the unions" is sadly too true.
As an exmember who left in 2012 after 44 years in is/swp I can say that it was never our goal to have members on union execs - we were always opposed to any strategy that focused on the bureaucracy rather than the rank and file. To us it was r&f vs bureaucracy rather than left v right within the bureaucracy. A sign of decay is the shift in this focus.
Many thanks to a reader in the UCU who pointed out some outdated information in that union. An update has been added.
I'm a marxist influenced by Ernest Mandel in Brazil (but never joined the multiple sections here). I have no intent to defend the SWP. But this post seriously distorts the facts.
Ok, the Fourth International has real implantation in trade unions in France and Italy (mostly consequence of the 1970s struggles) but in no way this is the situation in most sections. Perharps the membership is divided between a majority of young people active in the new social movements and a minority of 70s veterans no longer in the workforce and the unions.
At the same time, the downturn analysis sadly still holds true in the imperialist countries. In no European country ler alone the United States the levels of unionization and strike action are higher than in the 90s (the heyday of Neo-liberalism). I doubt If Anti-capitalist Resistance has better trade union implantation than the SWP. Perharps it's even worse.
I think this post substitutes cheap political score-pointing for a concrete analysis of the situation
Rodrigo raises fair points that deserve a direct response. Let me clarify what I am and am not arguing.
I am not claiming that Fourth International sections universally enjoy better union implantation than the IST. They manifestly do not. The Brazilian section Rodrigo knows firsthand, the British section (Anti-capitalist Resistance and Ecosocialist Scotland), and many others have weaker workplace presence than even the diminished SWP. However, it's not clear to me that most workers joining the FI will not be unionised even if the demographic pattern he describes, young activists in social movements plus ageing veterans from the 1970s, applies across much of the revolutionary left internationally.
Nor am I disputing that objective conditions have deteriorated. Unionisation rates, strike days, shop steward density: all lower than the 1970s, often lower than the 1990s. Cliff's description of a downturn was accurate in many ways.
My argument is different. The downturn thesis is not just a description; it is an orientation that justified a strategic retreat. The SWP's response to changed conditions was to pull back from building an independent rank-and-file workplace organisation and to substitute executive-focused Broad Left politics. The reasoning ran: workers lack confidence, therefore we cannot build from below, therefore we must work through left officials and union structures. This was presented as tactical realism. In practice, it meant abandoning the strategic goal of creating independent working-class capacity outside and against the bureaucracy.
The Italian example is not "FI sections are better." It is: different strategic choices in comparable conditions produce different organisational capacities. Italian comrades chose to build within base unions and to concentrate on logistical chokepoints. That choice, made over decades, meant that when political strikes on Palestine became possible, they had the capacity to deliver them. The SWP's choice, executive lobbying in large unions, produced fifteen NEC seats and an inability to shift the Birmingham bin strike.
Rodrigo is right that this demands concrete analysis, not score-settling. But concrete analysis must include examining how theoretical frameworks shape strategic choices, and how those choices compound over decades into organisational realities.
P.S. There are not multiple sections of the Fourth International in Brazil. There is one section, which is inside the PSOL, the Socialism and Liberty Party. The section contains different tendencies that collectively publish Inprecor Brazil (https://inprecor-br.org/) and individually operate as public currents in the PSOL.
Thanks for the clarification!
As a member of a USFI-section in another country "membership is divided between a majority of young people active in the new social movements and a minority of 70s veterans no longer in the workforce and the unions" is sadly too true.
The SWP are rape apologists.
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2018/10/11/cool-girl-activism-and-why-ill-no-longer-stand-with-groups-that-include-the-swp/
Thanks for the reminder Matthew. I have written more about this, including at https://redmole.substack.com/p/lessons-from-the-swps-collapse-for and https://redmole.substack.com/p/the-reckoning-that-wasnt-why-the