Talk:Ted Grant

photo?

Any chance someone could add a picture of this alter kocker?

Untitled

I met Ted in 1974, travelled to Spain with him, and he remembered me 30years later. I have nothing but admiration for Ted who struggled, for over 60yrs, against the stream to build a marxist tendency. Whilst not always the best speaker the content was always good. The ultra-left sectarians, who ignored Ted, were and always will be outside the labour movement and will never learn. Ted has made a huge contribution to Marxist Theory.

Political theorist?

Ted Grant did not receive any academic training in political theory/philosophy, let alone earn a post-graduate degree. Is it fair and accurate to label him a "political theorist?" I would argue "political activist" is far more appropriate. 121.129.174.74 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

one has to have a degree to be a political theorist? That's a bit elitest. Ted Grant wrote political theory full time for decades including books and still has followers in many countries of his theories. that's more than activism. Notenderwiggin (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

Ted Grant was definitely born Isaac Blank. It even says so in his autobio. The Guardian obituary (27-July-06) is incorrect. Trious 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just had to correct his again... The Guardian is wrong, and so is the Independent who copied from them. It says in his autobiography that he was born Isaac Blank and Rob Sewell says so too. It would be against NOR to claim otherwise. I believe there is documentary evidence too, but its not available online. Trious 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Blank was used so as to not reveal his full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.82.27 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because it says Blank in his autobiography- the Guardian is clearly a more authoritative source than someone's autobiography for one. For two, does "blank' even sound like a name? Its well known that marxist activists often use pen names (see Trotsky, Stalin etc) and this is simply part of that tradition. Rob Sewell following in the 'Blank" tradition doesn't prove anything. Notenderwiggin (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you change it back without writing anything on this discussion page? The Guardian is clearly a more reliable source and blank is clearly not a name. Notenderwiggin (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

How is a Guardian article a more reliable source than his autobiography? "blank is clearly not a name"? See Blank (surname). Warofdreams talk 10:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because his autobiography is published by his own publishing house. Also, the Guardian refers to the autobiography and says that it is incorrect, so we have a source that's super-ceding in time and also more independent. Also the Guardian is one of the largest and most respected papers, so what it says should be considered more reliable than something from a small marxist press run by Ted Grant's followers. Blank might be a name for some people, but it could also clearly be a clue to a false name. Notenderwiggin (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian doesn't give any source for their claim. Given that the Telegraph, Times, Independent and ODNB all acknowledge that he was born as "Isaac Blank", that rather trumps The Guardian. There is, therefore, a clear consensus in the sources available that it was his real name. In fact, I haven't found any other source supporting this claim which you keep trying to introduce to the lead of this article. Warofdreams talk 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Working with Ted Grant

I was sorry to read about the death of Ted Grant in The Socialist 27 July. I first met Ted in 1968 when I was 16. One of his strengths was his ability to patiently explain the fundamental principles of Marxism to young and inexperienced socialists. I didn’t feel patronised. For him the movement and the ideas were all important; he was painstaking and perfectionist in relation to ideas and fond of open debate.

I ended up working with Ted and the others (in a very minor role) with Militant. He was not the easiest of people to work with but the role of Militant in that period is well-documented and we were all caught up in the work and the ideas and consigned personalities to their proper place.

He will always be remembered as someone who kept the ideas of Marxism alive under the most difficult of circumstances in the UK.

But Militant grew. It was very far from being a “one man band” like some of the “piddling little ultra-left sects” which Ted used to laugh at. And in the heat of the Poll Tax campaign and the struggle against Thatcher, new tactics were called for.

When I knew him, he was fond of saying, “Events, events, events will teach the broad masses of the working class more than any pamphlet or manifesto.” And events (the symptoms of the degeneration of New Labour) were to invalidate the position he came to adopt – seeking signs of life in the corpse of the Labour Left. He remained wedded to a tactic which was doomed to failure.

He is rightly honoured as a pioneer. He is not honoured by those who seek to gloss over his mistakes.

Derek McMillan

"He is not honoured by those who seek to gloss over his mistakes. " - who are you referring to Derek? And what mistakes are you thinking of? Trious 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Many could argue that outside the Labour Party not much has been built by those who felt such a strong need for "new tactics". Just consider the results of the SSP and SP splits. Anyway, this should be a place for discussing the Wikipedia article on Ted Grant and not Ted Grant himself. MauroVan 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for restyling

I feel this page deals too much with splits-expulsions-regrouping issues and too few with the main ideas of the man. I'm not so sure that people coming here is so interested in such details while nearly nothing is being said about the theoretical contributions of Ted G. to Marxism, like the theory of Proletarian Bonapartism, the dispute with Cliff et alia over "state capitalism" etc. When I'm over with the Italian page I will try and restyle this one if nobody is in disagreement with my proposal. However, some English mother-tongue is needed for turning what I write into proper English. :-) MauroVan 10:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the info that's here at the moment, but adding this information on theoretical contributions. I'd be happy to copyedit it for you. Warofdreams talk 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll help too. Trious 11:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian page done. I just need some pictures now. Have a look at it, I will try and translate something in the next days... --MauroVan 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section

What follows could be put before the beginning of his biography. It's a very bad translation of the "Political positions" section in the Italian page. It needs a thorough check by an English mother tongue. --MauroVan 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ted Grant described himself as a Marxist, a Leninist and a Trotskyist. In his ideas, one can recognize a strong emphasis on the following issues:

• So-called "Socialist" states born after World War Two are defined by Grant as "deformed workers' states", ie "proletarian Bonapartist" regimes. Thus he denies a qualitative difference between Stalin's URSS and such countries. In particular, Grant deepened Trotsky's theory on proletarian Bonapartism: he foresaw the likelihood, in the 1945-1991 world situation, of the establishment of new burocratized "workers' states" in backward countries, also on the basis of left-wing military coups and peasant guerrilla wars. According to Grant, variants between such regimes have a minor importance and the clashes counterposing their leaderships are just instrumental in supporting the interests of conflicting bureaucracies. Differently from most Trotskyist groups, Ted Grant believed that also Burma and Syria, though their leaders were not delivering Communistic speeches, were to be included in that same category when they had a planned economy. For all these countries, he supported a classic Trotsky's demand: a workers' "political revolution" aimed at restoring or establishing "workers' democracy" while preserving economic planning, as asked by the workers' wing of the Hungarian Revolution (1956).
• Heavily stressed was the importance of the "united front" tactics worked out by the Third International in the 20's and a renewed version of the entryist tactics which Trotsky adviced some of his followers to adopt in the 30's. According to Grant, Trotskyist groups joining large left-wing parties and the most important unions was a practical implementation of the united front in those difficult conditions Trotskyists had to face after 1945, when the Fourth International was far from being a gathering banner for most workers and leftist youth. In particular since the late 50's, Ted Grant developed an original concept of entryism (which he described as being a different concept than the classic entryism and also an opposing vision to Michel Pablo's "deep entryism"): the revolutionists should have worked "inside, outside and around the mass organizations" for "workers begin to move through their own traditional mass organizations" and therefore "outside the workers' movement, there's nothing". This stance resulted in the Grantist groups on a world scale distancing from most organizations of Fourth-Internationalist traditions, since they are usually considered as having degenerated into sects under the influence of the ideas of the petty bourgeoisie (guerrillaism, left-wing nationalism, studentism, third-worldism, feminism etc.).

Expulsion from Militant

The section header "Expulsion from Militant" is problematic. I suggest it be headed "The Break with the Militant"

There is no question that the Grantites left the Militant tendency, but there is nothing to suggest that they were expelled.

They say they were, but the leaders of the Militant Tendency say they left, and deny they were expelled.

The Grantites do not report participating in any expulsion proceedings, and none were reported by the Militant Tendency. This is a point of agreement which suggests they were not expelled, and that the assertions in this section should be changed.

Furthermore, the content of this section at least suggests that they were indeed preparing to leave.

I suggest it would be better to repalce "expelled" with "left" throughout this section, and eport that the Grantites claimed they were expelled, because this is clearly true.

Andysoh 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, SA supporters was not given the right to form a faction. Also we need to keep in mind that the quite big fulltime apparatus went with Taaffe. A fulltime apparatus can push people out just putting their weight and resourches behind it. Especially when keeping it on a local level, which was what happened in Militant. Btw sorry if my signing fucks up, can't exactly figure out the technique.

Hi, I think that you are expressing a point of view. You are really saying there was a 'de facto' expulsion, but the majority will reply there was a de facto break by the SA. These are really points of view - two ways to view a situation in which there was no actual expulsion proceedure participated in by either side.

To avoid a POV, a point of view approach, it would be fine for the article to put the points you make as long as it attributes the point of view to the SA. Say for instance, that the SA felt or claim that they were expelled, as long as you also say that the supporters of the majority deny this. But the heading should be "The break with Militant", and other instances of statement of fact amended.

For instance, you say the SA supporters were not given the right to form a faction. Whilst this in itself is still not an expulsion, even so it is not really born out by observing the situation. Take a careful look. The minority's documents were circulated and discussed, and a national conference convened in which both sides presented their case. There were many branch and district and regional meetings which discussed the issue with speakers from both sides. There was an extensive exchange of documents, which began very well, but by the end had degenerated into a slanging match - but which indicates that the two de facto factions had said their all. The minority was, in this sense, in point of concrete fact, acting freely as a fully acknowledged faction all the time.

Both factions met separately, and exchanged documents. The minority did not apply in some formal sense for the "right to form a faction" - unless they "applied" after they had left, and then only for propaganda purposes - because the minority was fully reconised as the minority faction, and treated as such, with full rights. The formal exchange of documents and a national conference debating the two sides is a concrete fact of the existance of two factions. In the course of this, the minority won over as many people from the Militant as it could. So the argument is somewhat misleading and spurious. There is much more that could be said in relation to this argument.

Also,you say a full time apparatus "could" push people out - I'm afraid that's a point of view. It may or may not be true, in this or other instances, but it is still a point of view.

I hope I've clarified this a little.

For signature, just enter four tildas "~" or click on the link beside the words Sign your name" below.

Andysoh 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying that, well one of my points was that there was in fact expulsions on a local level. I can see your point however, still it justn't really change how SA supporters were expelled locally, for that we need to dig up old minutes of meetings.80.167.195.80 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, Grant and Woods were not expelled - the article is incorrect. The article makes no reference to any local expulsion of minority supporters, and I am not sure this would be right if it did. Branches did not proceed to expel minority supporters.

Where they were active (and supporters of the Minority tended to be the less active layers) at a local level, after the lengthy and exhausting discussion and debates, which took up every hour of both factions and were hammered away at in every branch and in the pub afterwards, etc, the supporters of the minority stopped attending the branches. They had ceased to attend the branches a significant time before the turn of 1992.

Even if there could be found an exception to this, where a branch had to proceed to implement an expulsion procedure, it would not constitute the expulsion of the minority. In any case, in the Militant, as in any genuinely democratic party, there really is no such thing as expulsion at a local level. You are a member of a national party, and you have a right to a hearing nationally, and to appeal to conference, and the whole party – both factions – was following every last development in every branch where there was a minority.

I hope this helps. Andysoh 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the whole issue (expelled or stepped out) of little relevance, even if I can understand that to comrades involved in that split this minor point could have a strong emotional impact. Nobody cares about who expelled whom, the point is that two different trends emerged in the international organization and each of these trends built his own international structure (CWI and CMI/IMT). The right and neutral word to be used is "split".

"They had ceased to attend the branches a significant time before" sounds like the typical factional fight argument: we didn't even need to expel you because you did it yourself de facto. I think this "analysis" could be questioned by many, anyway as long as it does not enter the article I don't care. Please everybody stop using the "de facto" argument because it's inherently POV. --85.18.37.27 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I think your proposed wording is fine.

We propose to change the heading "Expulsion from Militant" to "The split from Militant", and similarly in the text of this section if there is no more discussion on this point.

I think your point about the 'strong emotional impact' of the issue is very important, although it does not really follow that "nobody cares" for this very reason. Both sides care very much.

That's why an assertion of "expulsion" needs to be backed up by evidence (given preferably by both sides of the split - but we find none on either side).

Let's be quite clear. From the point of view of the Majority, and I think as well purely from the point of view of factual reporting in this encyclopaedia, it is tendentious of the article to claim that Ted and Woods were expelled, because it was not true and suggests precipitous action. One could see in this section of the article (presumably unintentionally) a POV, that is a failure to clearly explain the entire period of the formal and significant exchange of documents of the two factions and the special conference, (which perhaps misled the unsigned correspondent above, for instance), the vote of 93% in favour of the majority, in contrast to implications of bullying and undemocratic manoeuvring through the use of this emotive term "Expulsion from Militant" - again see correspondence above, who appears to think that there were expulsions "at local level" which reflects that inference, although the article does not suggest that itself. A link to both sides of the correspondance - I mean the documents exchanged in the debate - exchange would be helpful.

Nevertheless, the solution which you propose, to use the word "split" would considerably improve this section of the article.

Cheers Andysoh 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggested this be changed a while ago now, so will go ahead with the suggested amendment (above) in a week or so, unless there is any further discussion.

There are one or two very minor errors that could be corrected at the same time.

Grant was expelled in 1983, not 1982. The hearings against the editorial Board were in late 1982.

It is untrue to say "The paper traditionally hid the authors of its pieces under reverse initials, so Grant's articles are identified as being by 'GE'." This did not happen in the Militant newspaper. What is meant here (and what it should be roughly changed to) I assume is that "in the internal members' bulletins of the Militant, members were sometimes identified only by their initials, sometimes reversed."

It might be worth also clarifying the open method of the Militant in half a sentence. Perhaps make clear that in the Militant newspaper, "supporters" were very open, printing their names and what Labour Party or Labour Party Young Socialists they were members of. As the article suggests, there was little support for witchhunts, and until the long period of defeats in the 1980s transformed the situation, the Labour Party leadership did not have sufficient support at the grass roots to carry out widespread expulsions of large numbers of well known Militant supporters, who sold the Militant newspaper openly inside Labour Party ward and constituency meetings, moved "Militant" resolutions, and had their names on the paper's pages. Basic working class support within the Labour Party, and the support of the soft left, on which the Militant sustained its open approach, evapourated in the second half of the 1980s, fifteen to twenty years ago.

It is not correct to say "the so-called "Editorial Board" - actually the Militant/RSL executive committee..." There were quite a few other members on the executive committee, from the Labour Party Young Socialists, from the trade union side, and so on. It woud be clearer to simply say "the so-called "Editorial Board" of the Militant, consisting of the most long-standing members, Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe, Keith Dickinson, Lynn Walsh, and Clare Doyle) was half-hearted.

cheers Andysoh 23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice one anonymous editor claimed that the Militant EC expelled Grant and Sewell, but did not cite any references. The Militant disputed their claims, and without any material to cite, the expulsion claim is a POV, a point of view. Grant, Woods and Sewell, the Militant said, could have to turn up at any time to challenge the statement that they had left. They had the right to appeal at an NC, Party conference, and also at a conference of the CWI. If they had, then an expulsion proceedure would have begun, with a hearing on the evidence of their collecting finance for a separate organisation, renting premises, and so forth. None of this was required because in reality they had turned their backs on the Militant and split.Andysoh 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be mentioned that the debate on the Scottish turn and the internal democracy of Militant had an international importance for CWI. On the International Executive Committee of CWI Taaffe had only majority of 25 to 14 over Grant/Woods. The Taaffe faction in the CWI was called "The Platform for Democratic debate and unity", Grant/Woods "The Internationalist Opposition" (IS circular, London 17.11.91). Grant/Woods/Sewell where sacked & expelled by the majority faction of the EB from Militant the 13 January 1992. They where called in to the center on the 16th at noon and had their expulsions read out to them by Lynn Walsh. They "had placed themselves outside the ranks of the organisation" and had no right to appeal. There was also a "Petition against expulsions" produced right after the expulsions collecting signatures of Militant supporters protesting specifically against the expulsion of Ted Grant who, after all, had 55 years of service to the tendency. All sections of the CWI who supported Grant/Woods/Sewell where expelled (or "placed themselves..." etc) from the CWI, well before the CWI congress in august 1992. I think it is an expulsion when you are forced out, made to leave nonvolunteerly e t c. 81.233.148.143 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not quite right, as I understand it, in relation to the so-called expulsions.

The special conference which discussed and decided the issue, and where the majoirty had got 93% of the vote, took place in October 1991.

In January 1992 however, allegations emerged that the Minority had taken steps to set up their own, rival publication, and had already established "their own small premises and their own staff and are raising their own funds."

Grant, Woods and Sewell were indeed personally told of these serious allegations against them, in January and possibly at the day and time you state in some way (you mention the 13 January), which would be about right.

The allegations were to be printed in the Militant dated the 24th January, so they were first given the opportunity to clarify any errors or misunderstandings face to face, as it were, beforehand.

Since the allegations were printed ni the Militant, one could draw the conclusion the Majority felt the allegations were sufficiently sound, (after speaking to Grant Woods and Sewell directly) to be printed.

I don't think, in fact, that anyone denies that these allegations were true.

They were told they were suspended, not expelled. They *did not* have expulsions read out to them and they *did* have the right to appeal against their suspension, and the opportunity to demonstrate that the allegations were false, or in any other way to appeal to remain members.

But they did not appeal, so it would not be going too far to suggest that they did not feel as strongly as their protests suggested, about staying as members.

They made quite a fuss about this "expulsion" as they called it, so the Majority faction largely expected them to appeal against their suspension at any number of events subsequently, such as any national committee, national conference, international conference, which was their right, as every member knew.

I hope this clarifies the situation, and ties in the events that you are aware of.

Andysoh 00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to realise that well over a thousand where expelled in the same fashion through out the CWI during 1992. If there was a right to appeal, how come not a single one has been up for debate at CWI congresses? Well, i don't care, for me it's history. For you... whatever makes you sleep better...195.67.48.14 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably know that there was a lengthy debate in all the sections of the CWI. In some places the Minority won, such as Italy for instance, and the entire section left and established a new international on the principles they defended, and some places the majority won, and remained in the CWI. Some sections split, in various ways, like the British section. Things were never posed in terms of expulsions by the majoirty, whilst the majority claim that the minority had often raised that there would be a split, even right from the very start. It is clear from reading the material that there was going to be a parting of the ways.

I think you can understand it better as a deep political difference which arose due to changed *material* circumstances across the world in the 1980s (rather than the supposed aspirations (*ideas*) of individuals), as to whether the traditional workers' parties had changed into bourgois parties, and whether to still work in them. The Minority might be bitter, as can perhaps occasionally be inferred from their literature, but they did not wish to remain as a minority in a party that was abandoning this tactic, they did not bother appealing, but wished to continue the tactic independently.

I hope this clarifies things.

Andysoh 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally am never bitter, bitterness has nothing to do in politics. It burns you out, however it seems to me I never saw any form of theoretical explanations from the old majority on how the parties suddenly turned. I've heard it said on many a meeting but that's all. But that should of course be put in the section on SP. Anyway sorry for butting in on the discussion, just wanted to challenge Andy's perception in his last paragraph which I find quite odd, considering SP never gave any theoretical explanation on the turn. 80.197.1.72 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe see http://www.marxist.net/openturn/main/ which has the documents of the minority and majority (which eventually became the SP) exchanged during 1991 before the special conference. I believe the majority document does discuss the "changed situation" here. See for instance: http://www.marxist.net/openturn/main/f3-2.html

Andysoh 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to say I think the majority documents really lacks any marxist explanation of the "changed situation"80.167.85.23 18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV and how you would like the history of the tendency to look like. You are are making the case that people how for decades work stubbornly in a minority position in the labour movement suddenly when the have a disagreement with Peter Taaffe just walks away because they can't stand be in a minority. That is an idealistic interpretation of peoples behavior. Very unlike Ted if one look how he behaved in a minority position i RCP or later in the 4th. In that case one could turn it all around and say that since the majority was, as you say, pretty sure that the minority's intention was to split; why not get the benefit of striking first and get some damage control? That makes the expulsions rather logical. And I'm not the least 'bitter' about it - I'm happy I'm not in the same organisation as PT and his people.

But I hope you agree its not really wiki policy to base articles on any guess work, such as about how a person, whether Ted or Peter, behaved in the past, and there is a limit to how much we can discuss it here.

Anyway, I'm glad you're not bitter ;) Andysoh 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Internationalsocialist.jpg

Image:Internationalsocialist.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There's a whole website devoted to the life and works of Ted Grant! I don't believe that this page is lacking sources! I would remove the advice and recommend the editors to notify individual sentenced that are considered in need for a source. The website [www.tedgrant.org www.tedgrant.org] is already cited in the article.--MauroVan (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proletarian Bonapartism

I have fixed a section that said "Grant deepened Trotsky's theory on proletarian Bonapartism." Trotsky never used the phrase "proletarian Bonapartism" or had such a theory. Rather, Trotsky's idea is that of the "degenerated workers' state," which was applied exclusively to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Grant first used the phrase "proletarian Bonapartism" in 1951 as a synonym for "Stalinism." (See "Stalinism in the Postwar World.") But Grant's idea eventually came to have a much broader reach. By 1978, it was a designation for any nationalist state with "left" policies, e.g., Benin, Burma, Ethiopia, and Syria. (See "The Colonial Revolution and the Deformed Workers' States.") -- Ecosophia09 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of WPSA

@Wellington Bay,

Should the section about WPSA now be removed? If Grant left South Africa in 1934, before its founding, it's not really a relevant fact to his Early History but rather relevant to the article on WPSA? Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going to but as the factional issues centred around Lee in south africa carried over to England and had a huge impact on Grant's political life I think it's useful for context. It's only a sentence and doesn't go into minute detail. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in the same two minds about it. What I've done though is moved around the order, so the section about Grant being recruited but then leaving is in one bit, and then the founding of WPSA and Lee's expulsion and leaving for England is in another (to give better flow in the next section about Militant). Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)