1.) I assumed Keir's early Trotkyism & work with Socialist Alternative was quite limited & was an aside to his law work?
As far as the evidence goes, it was limited in the sense he only spent a few years formally in any sort of organization. My point was more that you have to get politicized/radicalizaed in some way. Seeing as he joined it fairly young and while in school, I think it's fair to say that his first real formative experience with politics was within a microsect.
2.) I always thought that the branch of Trotyiskm that Keir was with was laregly just modelled on the wider social movements in the 80s; whether that was green politics, gay and lesbian rights or the various reform movements in Eastern Europe.
Not exactly. Pabloite Trotskyism descended from a split in the post WWII Fourth International. Michael Pablo was the pen name of a Greek-Egyptian who was exiled to France following his imprisonment by Metaxis, and miraculously survived the Nazi occupation. As the Secretary of the Fourth International, Pablo was faced by a movement that had been all but anhiliated over the last 20 years. And so he basically concluded that the best path forward for militants was not to form separate parties, but to practice "entryism" into the official workers movements of the times - namely Communist Parties and Unions. This led to a split in the International, the leaders of which would soon practice all of the things they accused Pablo of. Pablo soildered on, but was eventually cut out of the International in favor of a unification with some of the "Orthodox Trotskyists" that had split (chiefly the American SWP). The main sticking point? Pablo's support for national liberation movements, most prominently the FLN.
Supporting the FLN was no easy task in France in the 1950s. In fact, the Trotskyists were the only force on the Left to do so, and faced serious state repression, as well as repression within the (PCF dominated) union movement. Mandel himself was jailed in the Netherlands for his work smuggling weapons and counterfeit papers to the FLN. After his release, he high tailed it to Morocco, followed by the newly liberated Algeria, where he became a top advisor to Ben Bella.
Pablo's belief that Trotskyists should support national liberation movements would lead to his split with the International. His sect was always quite marginal, as his small band of followers were mostly based in Latin America, where they would be shortly exterminated by the forces of capital. But he continued on, fleeing the coup that toppled Ben Bella, and advising figures such as Castro, Tito, Allende, and the PLO. During this period he published a paper called "Under the Banner of Marxism," which Kier faithfully sold. In this paper, he pushed for among other things, self-management, an idea that he had first put into practice with Ben Bella, as
autogestion. So, we have self-management as a specifically Pabloite program. But what of the rest of the program. Well remember that Pablo supported entry into offical working-class movements. And he was very expansive with this, including national liberation movements when hardly anyone on the Left would see them as representitive of the working-class. So green politics, LGBT movements, and so on? All worthy of Trotskyist entryism. But Contra Al, I wouldn't say that this was a particuarly unusual position on the Trot side of things. It was pretty easy to find Trots in favor of Solidarity in Poland, most of the non-CP Left was, including some Maoists. Green politics, as well, were supported by many Trots (remember that a fear of nuclear war has been a mainstream Trot position since the 50s, and that the first "Green" movement came from rank and file building trade militants in Austrailia, which always had a decent Pabloite grouping) and seeing non-Communist movements as official representitives of the working class was a position held by, among others, Michael Gorbachev. What distingusihed the Pabloites, was 1) the broad extent to which they saw movements as being proletarian in nature, 2) the belief that there was not a need for a vanguard party to direct these movements and 3) the focus on Self-Management as a program to fight for.
3.) The above explains why Paul Mason supports Keir right?
I mean who can tell with him? I think it has more to do with staying relevant.
4.) How does the Alliance for Workers Libery fit in with the above? I remember reading about them first when they were accused of trying to take over CLPs in Lewisham & then they were accused of being behind the push for a people's vote/remain on the left?
AWL are the followers of one Sean Matgamna (sometimes known by John O'Mahoney), who you may know from back in the day as the ringleader of
Socialist Organiser. Or
Workers Fight. O
Trotskyist Tendency. Or
International-Communist League. Or
Workers Socialist League.
To quote John Sullivan
it would help if we could explain the guiding ideas which have given continuity throughout so many changes of name and partners. Unfortunately this is not possible either, as there are none! That such formidable intransigence and organisational continuity has coexisted with a bewildering variety of positions goes some way to explain his former associates’ fury.
Let us leave accusations of mental instability as the last resort of O’Mahoney’s exasperated former partners, and seek to explain his conduct by its social context. Lenin was fond of quoting Tolstoy’s anecdote of the man who appeared, from the distance, to be making lunatic gestures, and could be seen as deranged. When seen from closer up, the man was engaged in the perfectly rational activity of sharpening a knife on the kerbstone.
They broadly fit into the loose category of "Third Campists." Which means they've ran out of people to ally with and are now down to ~50 members. Nowadays, they are distinguished by their determined racism and Islamophobia, their nickname "the Soggies" and "Labour for a socialist Europe." There's a false rumour that Gloria Di Pieiro was once a member, as well.
5.) I assume the Workers Party is just a vehcile for Galloway?
Yes, with a new face. Now he is the voice of the "anti-woke" worker. Very much a first as tragedy than as farce moment.
6.) What's your general feeling about whats going to happen with momentum & the wider parts of the left which either informally or formally entered Labour's various eco-systems after 2015? Part of me is convinced that it will get it's game together marginally and present a relatively united front at least for the NEC elections but equally the tenions bubbling away during this campaign were obvious and I can see it all going insane.
Presenting a relatively united front for the NEC elections seems somewhat optimistic to me. Similar to the US, most of these microsects have gotten quite weaker over the past few years and aren't picking up new members. That only bodes for more insanity.
