The nature of the RSL¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter is a polemical dissection of the Revolutionary Socialist League’s (RSL) political character, arguing that the organisation is trapped in a contradictory stasis of ultra-leftism and opportunism, which are revealed as two sides of the same sectarian coin. The core claim is that the RSL’s policy on the war—a sterile, abstract “revolutionary defeatism”—is matched by a thoroughly opportunist approach to work inside the Labour Party. The author insists that this contradiction is only sustainable because the RSL never translates its radical words into practical deeds. Within the Labour Party, the RSL functions merely as “socialist lefts”, never advancing its revolutionary positions on the war, which remain confined to private discussion. This allows the leadership to maintain a façade of militancy while doing almost nothing, since Labour Party activity in 1943 is minimal and infrequent. The chapter thus accuses the RSL of substituting grandiose phrases for genuine political work, using radicalism as a compensation for sterility and impotence.
The text grounds this critique in a broader Marxist analysis of sectarianism, drawing on Trotsky’s Transitional Programme to argue that a correct orientation toward the trade unions and the mass organisations is the condition for revolutionary success. The RSL’s errors are attributed to a petty-bourgeois mentality, isolation from the working class, and a milieu of inertia and gossip. The chapter warns that the RSL is degenerating and stagnating, and that continuation on its present course will lead to complete disappearance. The historical context is the dissolution of the Comintern and the opening of a new stage for the Fourth International, which demands that British Trotskyists abandon both sectarianism and opportunism.
The polemic is directed squarely at the RSL leadership, but also implicitly at the membership, who are called upon to force a change. The chapter argues that the RSL’s long-flogged demand for “unity” with the Workers’ International League (WIL) must now be realised, not as a bureaucratic merger but as a principled Bolshevik fusion that integrates both organisations into the actual class struggle. The tone is urgent and accusatory, presenting the RSL’s position as untenable and fatal unless abandoned. The closing appeal is a direct call to the RSL rank-and-file to speed negotiations and secure unity on a correct basis, positioning the WIL as the serious, mass-oriented alternative.