The history of the “deviation”¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter is a forensic rebuttal of a factional accusation levelled against the Workers’ International League (WIL) by a comrade Stuart, who had alleged the existence of a “national deviation” within the British section. The core argument is that Stuart fabricated the deviation by wrenching a single, unpolished draft sentence from its collaborative editing process and presenting it as evidence of a chauvinistic political line. The author demonstrates this by reproducing the textual evolution of the disputed formulation. The original draft, written by a WIL member other than the “same leader” previously criticised, stated: “Only the working class, by taking power into its own hands can destroy fascism abroad and at home, ushering in a period of peace and plenty for all mankind.” The Trotskyist Opposition (TO) redrafted it to emphasise that the British working class could only assist German workers by first waging a struggle against its own ruling class, and that a workers’ state would defend itself militarily. Comrade Haston, the original drafter, then revised it to include the destruction of fascism abroad through “revolutionary war.” The final published version, also by Haston, explicitly tied this to overthrowing the capitalist state under the leadership of the Fourth International.
The chapter argues that this sequence proves no “heated” discussion occurred; the question was too elementary for the supposedly un-theoretical WIL. The final draft was accepted unanimously. Stuart’s claim that WIL members held that “the liberation of European peoples from fascism was to be accomplished (not inspired, aided or furthered) by a socialist Britain in arms” is denounced as a “disgraceful” falsification. The author notes that Stuart did not consult the comrades he slandered, despite a specific request from comrade Grant that the leadership in Britain see his report before publication, given previous experience of Stuart’s activities. The chapter then quotes Stuart’s own admission that “no other manifestations are recorded” and that “not a fragment of a single document has crystallised such a point of view.” The author seizes on this concession to argue that Stuart’s accusation rests on factional gossip, not evidence, and that dozens of existing documents contradict the alleged deviation. The polemic is directed squarely at Stuart and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) leadership, who are accused of peddling “irresponsible stuff” as a serious contribution to international education. The chapter thus defends the WIL’s internationalism against a charge of national narrowness, exposing the accusation as a weapon of factional warfare rather than a principled political critique.