Subject: Trotskyite Sri Lanka Date: 20 Jun 2001 15:22:58 GMT From: dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Normally, asking what would happen if Trotskyites gained control of country X puts us into ASB territory. However, Sri Lanka may be a significant exception. As Robert J. Alexander has written: "The Trotskyist movement in Ceylon/Sri Lanka is unique. The country is one of the few in which avowed Trotskyists had substantial membership in the national legislature and the only one in which the Trotskyist party was the official opposition. It was also the only nation in which Trotskyists controlled a number of municipalities. The Ceylonese/Sri Lanka Trotskyists were the only ones who largely dominated the national trade union movement for several decades."--Robert J. Alexander, *International Trotskyism 1929- 1985* (Duke University Press 1991) Alexander's chapters on Sri Lanka in his massive book are available online: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/cey1_1.htm http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/cey1_2.htm http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/cey2_1.htm http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/cey2_2.htm So here is my PoD for having an outright control of Sri Lanka by Trotskyites (rather than their mere participation in a coalition government like Mrs. Bandaranaike's in OTL): Have S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike decide not to form a new party (the Sri Lanka Freedom Party or SLFP) in the early 1950's but to stay with the then-dominant United National Party. In OTL, the SLFP, which portrayed itself as both a non-Leninist socialist party and a champion of the rights of the Sinhalese, overtook the Trotskyite Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) as the second largest party in 1952. The rise of the SLFP presented the LSSP with all sorts of opportunities for electoral "deals" and eventually for participation in a coalition government--but it also pretty much eliminated the possibility of the LSSP winning power on its own. (In particular, as a party that wanted to appeal to both Sinhalese and Tamil workers the LSSP could not compete with the SLFP in communal appeals to the Sinhalese--although it ultimately did go along with making Sinhalese the only official language.) For a while after the assassination of Bandaranaike and the ensuing political chaos of 1959-60 the LSSP seemed to think it could regain dominance on the Left but in the end it reached electoral deals with the SLFP (now led by Bandaranaike's widow) and the Communists. Eventually it joined Mrs. Bandaranaike's government and was thereafter regarded by the Fourth International as no longer being a Trotskyite party because of its participation in a "bourgeois government." So assume that there's no SLFP, and that public dissatisfaction with the UNP leads voters to choose the LSSP as the major alterantive. The LSSP either wins an outright majority in parliament or at least does well enough to get a dominant position in a left-wing government. What effect does the world's first Trotskyite government have on both Sri Lanka and other countries? It is not enough to note that the LSSP as a coalition partner in OTL was not terribly radical; after all, its power to take radical action under the circumstances was limited. Still, one does get the impression that after decades of making election contests and trade union action their major field of activity, a lot of people in the LSSP were no longer really revolutionaries (if they had ever been) and had no particular desire to be, and that this might be true whether or not they had full control of the government. In any event, the history of the LSSP does suggest an interesting possibility: if there *had* been stronger Trotskyite parties in other countries as well, such parties might have been de-radicalized and tamed in the same way that first Social Democratic and later Stalinist parties were in OTL. In other words, the more "revolutionary" posture of the Trotskyites may be at least partially a function of their lack of power. -- David Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net Subject: Re: Trotskyite Sri Lanka Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:23:38 +1000 From: Sydney Webb Organization: Webb Family Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 David Tenner wrote: > So here is my PoD for having an outright control of Sri Lanka by > Trotskyites (rather than their mere participation in a coalition government > like Mrs. Bandaranaike's in OTL): Have S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike decide not > to form a new party (the Sri Lanka Freedom Party or SLFP) in the early > 1950's but to stay with the then-dominant United National Party. In OTL, > the SLFP, which portrayed itself as both a non-Leninist socialist party and > a champion of the rights of the Sinhalese, overtook the Trotskyite Lanka > Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) as the second largest party in 1952. The rise of > the SLFP presented the LSSP with all sorts of opportunities for electoral > "deals" and eventually for participation in a coalition government--but it > also pretty much eliminated the possibility of the LSSP winning power on > its own. (In particular, as a party that wanted to appeal to both > Sinhalese and Tamil workers the LSSP could not compete with the SLFP in > communal appeals to the Sinhalese--although it ultimately did go along with > making Sinhalese the only official language.) For a while after the > assassination of Bandaranaike and the ensuing political chaos of 1959-60 > the LSSP seemed to think it could regain dominance on the Left but in the > end it reached electoral deals with the SLFP (now led by Bandaranaike's > widow) and the Communists. Eventually it joined Mrs. Bandaranaike's > government and was thereafter regarded by the Fourth International as no > longer being a Trotskyite party because of its participation in a > "bourgeois government." > > So assume that there's no SLFP, and that public dissatisfaction with the > UNP leads voters to choose the LSSP as the major alterantive. The LSSP > either wins an outright majority in parliament or at least does well enough > to get a dominant position in a left-wing government. What effect does the > world's first Trotskyite government have on both Sri Lanka and other > countries? It is not enough to note that the LSSP as a coalition partner > in OTL was not terribly radical; after all, its power to take radical > action under the circumstances was limited. Still, one does get the > impression that after decades of making election contests and trade union > action their major field of activity, a lot of people in the LSSP were no > longer really revolutionaries (if they had ever been) and had no particular > desire to be, and that this might be true whether or not they had full > control of the government. > > In any event, the history of the LSSP does suggest an interesting > possibility: if there *had* been stronger Trotskyite parties in other > countries as well, such parties might have been de-radicalized and tamed in > the same way that first Social Democratic and later Stalinist parties were > in OTL. In other words, the more "revolutionary" posture of the > Trotskyites may be at least partially a function of their lack of power. Indubitably. It is the political eunuchs who remain ideologically pure. I would expect that a LSSP that assumed power in its own right would be expelled from the 4th International for "bourgeois tendencies" or "devationalism" as the new Sri Lankan government struggled to deal with realities rather than oh-so-simple theories. However and LSSP government may be less Sinhalese chauvinistic than an SLFP dominated administration. Might Tamil-Sinhalese be better(1) in this ATL? (1) If 'better' seems too much like a value judgment the tender reader is invited to substitute the phrase "less violent".(2) (2) The BoP precludes an anti-Mrs Bandaranaike rant at this point. - Syd -- "Sorrow for sins that for vengeance have cried" - Patrick Appleford Subject: Re: Trotskyite Sri Lanka Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:43:29 +0100 From: Phil Edwards Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 20 Jun 2001 15:22:58 GMT, dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) wrote: >As Robert J. Alexander has written: > >"The Trotskyist movement in Ceylon/Sri Lanka is unique. The country is one >of the few in which avowed Trotskyists had substantial membership in the >national legislature and the only one in which the Trotskyist party was the >official opposition. It was also the only nation in which Trotskyists >controlled a number of municipalities. The Ceylonese/Sri Lanka Trotskyists >were the only ones who largely dominated the national trade union movement >for several decades."--Robert J. Alexander, *International Trotskyism 1929- >1985* (Duke University Press 1991) According to a British guy whose name I won't give, as he's still active on the Left, he and a couple of comrades were effectively posted to Ceylon (as I think it then was) by the IMG in the late 60s. Their brief was to organise the Ceylonese trade union movement. Presumably the idea was to sweep up after the LSSP, which by this stage would have been seen as irredeemably compromised. Objective conditions weren't favourable, unfortunately. Phil "waiting for the upturn" Edwards -- Phil Edwards research@amroth.zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Trotskyite Sri Lanka Date: 28 Jun 2001 06:15:51 GMT From: dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Sydney Webb wrote in <3B35E9DA.D8107DF@hotmail.com>: > >However and LSSP government may be less Sinhalese chauvinistic than an >SLFP dominated administration. Might Tamil-Sinhalese be better(1) in >this ATL? Questionable. In OTL, the LSSP, after backing Tamil as a co-official language in the 1950's, and learning that such "internationalism" was costing it Sinhalese support, not only came to accept Sinhalese as the sole official language but in 1966 actually participated in demonstrations against the United National Party government for issuing regulations providing for "the reasonable use of Tamil." > >(1) If 'better' seems too much like a value judgment the tender reader >is invited to substitute the phrase "less violent".(2) > >(2) The BoP precludes an anti-Mrs Bandaranaike rant at this point. ObHymn (by Bishop Heber): "What though the spicy breezes Blow soft o'er Ceylon's isle; Though every prospect pleases, And only man is vile..." ^^^ Due to the BoP, I won't speculate on whether Mrs. B is a refutation of that last line... -- David Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net