The motive¶
Core Argument¶
Here, the Political Bureau of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) delivers a sharp polemic against "Stuart" (Sam Gordon) of the American Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) and his factional conduct within the British Trotskyist movement. The core argument is that Stuart’s “report” on the fusion of the Workers’ International League (WIL) and the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) is not a good-faith political document but a weapon in a premeditated factional strategy. The chapter’s narrative thrust is an exposé of this manoeuvre, framed as a violation of Bolshevik internationalism.
The chapter makes several key claims. First, Stuart’s historical prelude to the fusion is factually false and deliberately misleading. The author asserts that neither the "minority of the RSL" nor the WIL leadership held the positions Stuart attributes to them; rather, Stuart worked in close conjunction with the Trotskyist Opposition (TO) and a minority of the WIL, urging them in a closed letter to “maintain” themselves as a loyal faction “no matter what organisational turns the situation may take.” This, the RCP argues, is the true motive for the report: to provide an honourable mention for Stuart’s loyal friends and to keep a faction—lacking any genuine political differences—in being. The evidence cited is the existence of this closed letter and a whole archive of factional correspondence, though the author declines to reproduce the documents, stating they are unnecessary to prove the point.
The chapter draws heavily on the recent history of British Trotskyism, specifically the 1944 fusion between the WIL and the RSL that created the RCP, and the preceding factional battles within the international movement. It invokes the authority of Lenin and Trotsky to define correct international collaboration: official reports from national sections, with the minority having the right to add its piece. Stuart’s method is contrasted unfavourably with this, being likened to the “international method of Zinoviev”—a reference to the factional and manipulative practices of the Comintern under Zinoviev’s leadership, which the Trotskyist movement condemned.
The polemic is directed squarely at Stuart and his immediate circle within the SWP leadership. The RCP accuses them of peddling gossip, bypassing the official British leadership in negotiations with European comrades, and treating the British section as a terrain for their own organisational “irons in the fire.” The tone is one of reluctant but firm condemnation, insisting that the responsibility for the conflict rests entirely with Stuart. The chapter concludes by calling for a return to honest political collaboration based on clarity and agreement, warning that Stuart’s methods can only lead to disruption.