Obituary: Peter Taaffe – International Trotskyist theoretician and fighter for socialism

It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Peter Taaffe, who after a long illness died on 23 April 2025. The loss of Peter is a big blow to the working-class movement and Trotskyism internationally. Since becoming active in the revolutionary movement in 1960, Peter made an indispensable contribution, both theoretically and practically in the hard graft necessary to build a revolutionary party and international. Peter was a leading member of the International Secretariat of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), Political Secretary of the Socialist Party in England & Wales, and for many years its General Secretary. 

Characteristically, Peter fought a determined battle against numerous illnesses in recent years which allowed him to enjoy his final years a little longer. On behalf of the CWI throughout the world and the Socialist Party in England & Wales, we send our heartfelt condolences to Peter’s wife Linda, daughters Nancy and Katie, his grandchildren and great-grandson, and all his family and friends. 

Coming from Birkenhead, and an extremely poor working-class background, Peter found his way to Marxism and revolutionary politics. Never going to university, working for Liverpool City Council for a time, he educated himself through the revolutionary movement and experience. Well versed in literature as well as Marxism, he was not what is often perceived in some circles as a stereotypical theoretician coming from a petty bourgeois background. As a result, Peter was an inspiration, especially to those not from an academic or petty bourgeois background themselves – he demonstrated what those from a working-class background can be capable of theoretically and culturally. One of Peter’s strengths was that he never lost touch with the working class and oppressed as a workers’ leader. He continued to feel the pain and suffering they experienced. One of the greatest public orators of his generation, with a distinctive Merseyside accent and speaking style, Peter was able to immediately connect with audiences small and large. Peter summed up the horrors of capitalism and the struggles of the working class, explaining Marxist ideas in an accessible manner. 

Entering the movement 

Initially, Peter examined the Socialist Labour League, later the Workers Revolutionary Party, led by Gerry Healy at the time, but was repelled by the ingrained combination of its ultra-leftism and opportunism and its methods. Peter subsequently joined the forerunner of Militant, Socialist Fight, a small Trotskyist group largely comprised of workers, whose journal appeared infrequently. In Birkenhead and Merseyside, he was to participate in the building of the Young Socialists, intervening in many strikes and battles including the apprentices strike in 1964, along with other activists. 

One of Peter’s important early theoretical contributions was, together with others, developing a clear Marxist analysis of the Cuban revolution that overthrew the Batista dictatorship in 1959. This event was to see some on the Trotskyist and revolutionary left disorientated and mesmerised by Castro and his victorious guerrilla forces, resulting in their advocacy of the false methods of guerrillaism as a path towards the socialist transformation of society. 

The group preceding Militant was a somewhat ramshackle affair involving, amongst others, Ted Grant, the Deane brothers Jimmy and Arthur, and Keith Dickinson, but it had a largely working-class membership. Grant had played a key role in the Trotskyist movement analysing the new world situation that unfolded in the post-Second World War period. However, he was not an organiser or party builder. In an increasingly more favourable situation, Peter was decisive in turning the organisation around and seizing the opportunities which developed. 

In the early 1960s the group was mainly based in Liverpool, London, Tyneside, and some other cities. Resources were few and far between. Originally still on Merseyside when Militant was launched in 1964, with himself as editor, Peter moved to London. Herculean efforts were required, largely driven by Peter. At one stage, as he would recount, having moved to London he slept under the desk in the office for a period. ‘Wages’ were paid intermittently – depending on if enough money had been raised. Later, together with others, Peter helped effectively reconstruct a building, bought after a fundraising drive, in Bethnal Green where drains were dug, walls erected, and floors laid. 

This demonstration of backbreaking determination to overcome all odds was characteristic of Peter and was essential in allowing Militant to take decisive steps forward into the 1970s. He was determined to seek every opportunity to build our forces while, at the same time, defending and developing the programme of Marxism. This was demonstrated in many discussions Peter had with activists, and sometimes with workers’ leaders, in Britain and internationally. 

The 1960s saw important changes in the situation in Britain and internationally. Following the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), there came the anti-Vietnam war movement, the Civil Rights movement of black Americans and the Black Panthers, the French general strike, and the upheavals in what was then Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the revolutionary upheavals in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In Britain, the experience of Harold Wilson’s Labour government, especially its ‘In Place of Strife’ anti-trade union proposals, produced a growing shop steward-led opposition. These were all anticipations of even greater events and upheavals in the class struggle in the 1970s. These developments provided a wider audience, both of existing activists and those looking for answers and a way in which to be politically active. 

Against this background, which included the beginning of an increase in class struggle and political radicalisation in Britain, in 1970 supporters of Militant won a majority in the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS). At that stage it was a shell of an organisation. It began to grow through our activity and ideas. Under the leadership of Militant supporters, it was to be transformed as an organisation and grew to approximately 10,000 members, mainly of young workers. Peter’s great capacity here was in how he systematically assisted and gave room to younger comrades to play a role in developing this work and encouraged them. To encourage, however, was not to simply praise them. Peter took up weaknesses and mistakes, sometimes sharply, which was necessary as a revolutionary leader. But it was always from the point of view of assisting younger comrades to develop both themselves and the work. One of Peter’s great qualities was his ability to build teams and to bring the best out in those he worked with. 

Peter always sought to politically develop himself and others and this was reflected in the large amount of material which Militant started to produce. After becoming Editor of Militant, in fact the General Secretary of the Militant Tendency, he produced regular political reports covering our activity and current political issues. At that stage he took a particular interest in the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland, guerrillaism, and the movement of black Americans, particularly the Black Panther Party, writing on all of them. Peter later became a regular reviewer of books bringing to the attention of readers newer developments and ideas and responding to them. But whilst looking forward he also saw the importance of drawing from the past and learning lessons from history, which included writing a book on the French Revolution. 

Internationalist 

Supporters of Militant in the 1960s increasingly clashed with the leadership of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) around people like Ernest Mandel and Pierre Frank. In 1965 our group in Britain was effectively expelled from this international. The differences related to crucial questions on the revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the then Sino-Soviet split, and the perspectives and programme for the working class in Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Peter played a prominent role in those debates and was a delegate, alongside Ted Grant, at the World Congress that downgraded Militant’s status. 

Later, Peter played a central role in taking the decisive steps towards building a new international organisation, which would be founded in 1974 as the CWI. He was to play a crucial role along with other comrades frequently travelling to help form what were to become sections of the CWI. He initiated the political intervention we made in Ireland in the late 1960s and early 1970s to win support for our programme and played a crucial role in developing the CWI’s unique position on the national question there and elsewhere. This entailed making trips to Derry and Belfast during the height of the armed conflict. On one occasion he had to abandon his speech and the large meeting at a university campus as a bomb exploded nearby. 

His theoretical contribution on the national question has been amongst his most important, not only in Ireland but also in Sri Lanka, the Spanish state, Israel/Palestine, the Balkans and the former USSR, and Scotland. As Peter would emphasise, this was not the work of one person but of collective discussion. However, in any team certain players have a crucial role. Initially, Peter’s role and presence was crucial in countries like Ireland, Greece, Sri Lanka, India, Spain, South Africa and later elsewhere. 

At the same time as undertaking this international work, Peter steered Militant’s growth and development in Britain. In Britain in the 1970s and 1980s events, especially the rise in the class struggle and political radicalisation, allowed Militant to build a much larger base amongst important sections of the working class. At that time, the radicalisation inside the Labour Party allowed Militant to play a big role and block, until the mid-1980s, the attempts of the pro-capitalist right-wing of the party from any decisive victory in the struggle between the left and the right. In some areas of the country, to a greater or lesser extent, Militant was the backbone of the left within the Labour Party. This was later repeated to an extent in some of the trade unions. Through the support we had won in the Labour Party, three supporters of Militant – Pat Wall in Bradford, Dave Nellist in Coventry and Terry Fields in Liverpool – were elected as MPs. Militant had won a dominant position in the Labour Party in Liverpool. Eventually Militant was able to build the largest Trotskyist organisation seen, so far, in Europe with an overwhelmingly working-class membership and record of struggle. 

Mass campaigns 

Through the positions that had been conquered mass campaigns were initiated. Two of these, above all, reflected the support that had been won. The battle between Thatcher and Liverpool City Council in the mid-1980s, and then the struggle against the hated ‘poll tax’ involving millions which led to the defeat of Thatcher. In these struggles Peter demonstrated not only the theoretical capacities he had but also his strong grasp of adroit tactics, initiatives and strategy during important struggles, and a principled Marxist approach to politics. He was especially sensitive to the mood and outlook of workers. Above all, he demonstrated a great flexibility both politically and organisationally without ever abandoning a principled Marxist position. 

From the early 1980s, the Labour Party leadership was taking a rightward lurch, especially under the treacherous guidance of Neil Kinnock. Initially, it was the five members of the Militant Editorial Board, including Peter, who were expelled in 1983, but then hundreds more faced the same fate for putting forward a socialist programme. In Liverpool, following an epic struggle against the Thatcher government, from 1986 Militant supporters began to be driven out of the party, while the councillors were surcharged and removed from office. The LPYS was emasculated as a campaigning organisation in 1987. By the end of the 1980s and early 1990s the expulsions sped up. 

One crucial issue that arose during the poll tax struggle centred on the question of the MPs who supported Militant – should they refuse to pay their personal poll tax? The threat of expulsion from the Labour Party was posed and the loss of the parliamentary positions. This was to become the harbinger of a political struggle which developed in Militant and the CWI. 

Peter was adamant that MPs could not demand that millions refuse to pay and face the threat of imprisonment for doing so but then pay it themselves to keep their seats in parliament. This policy was eventually accepted but was opposed by Grant and some others in Militant’s leadership at the time. A witch-hunt ensued as Militant supporters were expelled for opposing the poll tax and supporting non-payment. Terry Fields MP went to prison and was expelled from the Labour Party. 

During the witch-hunt Peter appeared on numerous television programmes like Face the Press, Panorama, and others, debating with both left- and right-wing leaders of the labour movement. The workers’ movement was the natural environment for Peter and the ideas of Militant, nevertheless, in later years he debated at the elite Oxford Union, arguing so persuasively that he won the motion on the superiority of socialism to capitalism. 

Changing world 

By the end of the 1980s and early 1990s the world situation was in the process of going through a fundamental change. This was to have a direct impact on the revolutionary left and the CWI. The new situation necessitated a reappraisal of the world situation, tasks and tactics needed to build a revolutionary party. This was not a straightforward task. Yet these changes revealed a crucial quality that Peter embodied: an openness to see changes taking place and be ready to adapt to them. He often would say that repetition of a formula which had become outmoded was not enough and became a danger. Thus, he and others were open to the possibility of capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, especially following Thatcher’s visit to Poland in 1988, an issue discussed at a CWI World Congress at the end of that year. 

This perspective was to be vindicated as events unfolded throughout Eastern Europe and then in the former USSR in 1991-92. Peter was to lead the majority in the CWI recognising capitalist restoration had taken place and exploring the consequences that flowed from this. Grant and a minority in the CWI insisted on clinging to an outmoded formula and denied reality, even though Trotsky had raised the possibility of the USSR collapsing into capitalism in his book Revolution Betrayed in the 1930s. 

Concretely, the processes at work were also reflected in the British Labour Party and the social-democratic parties and many ‘Communist’ parties internationally. It required a change of position and the adoption of what was termed the ‘open turn’ – no longer working in the social-democracy but building independent revolutionary parties. This arose from the bourgeoisification of the social-democratic parties. Grant and his supporters rejected this, arguing this was “a threat to forty years’ work”, and that “the revolutionary party in Britain will be built through the trade unions and Labour Party – there is no other way in Britain”. These differences culminated in a split in the CWI in 1992. Adjusting to this entirely changed world situation and being sufficiently aware and open to see the changes afoot was in many respects one of Peter’s most important political contributions. It enabled the CWI to prepare for the new world situation and intervene in it. 

Peter at the same time was self-critical. Often, he would ask his collaborators, “What would Trotsky do in this situation?”  He felt Trotsky would have been severely critical of Militant for not launching an ‘open turn’ at the height of the poll tax movement or even earlier when we were driven from the Labour Party in Liverpool. 

1990s 

The 1990s was a testing time for revolutionaries. The obstacles and difficulties that arose from the collapse of the Stalinist states were immense. Support for socialist ideas for a period was thrown back. Conflicts and wars erupted along with struggles of youth and workers. The wars in the former Yugoslavia and the break-up of the former USSR saw Peter again produce important material dealing with the national question in these areas. He was to play a crucial role in analysing these events and developments. Internationally he continued his work. Peter helped initiate discussions with other political tendencies to exchange experiences and to see whether there was a political basis for joint activity. In the 1990s and 2000s he visited many countries in Europe and further afield, including Russia, Kazakhstan, the US, Chile, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and South Africa, to assist with the work. 

The objective situation, although explosive by the time of the “Great Recession” in 2008 and afterwards, was still complicated due to the weakness or lack of political organisations of the working class and its political consciousness. New stresses and strains developed within the CWI. A section, frustrated with the situation, began to seek short-cuts, opportunistically capitulated to the pressures of identity politics, and turned away from the organised working class. This eventually led to another split in the CWI. 

Again, Peter showed his grasp of what lay behind this development, which again reflected changes and complexities in the objective situation. In both the major divisions within the CWI the opponents initially tried to evade the political differences that emerged. They hid behind claims of an alleged inner-party ‘regime’, attacking Peter for alleged ‘intolerance’, echoing a point repeatedly featured by some of our political opponents and the class enemy. Political debate was in fact rife inside the CWI from its foundation onwards, with many discussions on, for example, the national question in Sri Lanka, the character of the Indian ruling class, perspectives for the European Union and euro, the class character of China, globalisation, plus the abandonment of building a revolutionary party by some Scottish members who themselves eventually left the international, Marxist economic theory and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and other issues. 

For Peter, occasional sharp exchanges were political not personal. Our opponents on the left and the right are certain to feature this and similar issues. In doing so they only demonstrate their lack of substance, seeking refuge in incidental issues to avoid the cardinal political questions involved. He was aware of the accusations of ‘intolerance’ and ‘authoritarian’ attitudes, and answered them in writing on occasions, where he pointed out that such accusations were nothing new. The same denunciations were levelled at Lenin and other revolutionary socialists. 

Many lives 

Peter lived not one but many lives. Devoted to the working class and revolutionary politics, he nevertheless also had other pursuits and an intensely human side. Peter, as a revolutionary leader, with the commitment, time and sacrifice necessary over decades of struggle, was the first to recognise the incredible support he needed from his family. He received that support in the bucketful, especially from his wife and comrade, Linda, a leading member of the Socialist Party herself, his daughters Nancy and Katie, and the rest of their family. 

Always concerned about the welfare and personal situation of those involved in the struggle Peter was attached to the life of human beings. Ever keen to engage with humanity in all its guises, and with an astonishing overall knowledge, he would gain and draw from all encounters with people from all spheres of life. He enjoyed social occasions of all kinds from the theatre to art galleries and evenings in the bar with a folk group. 

Peter and Linda have welcomed generations of revolutionary socialists from around the world to their home. Their generosity is renowned and appreciated by both longstanding and newer members of the CWI. Peter’s authority never affected his ability to engage in a comradely and friendly manner. 

His passion for football and his beloved Everton was ingrained. Match of the Day was always more eagerly awaited when Everton won, especially against their Merseyside rivals. When they lost, he would quip “it’s only a game”, in a futile attempt to hide his bitter disappointment. In the 1970s and 1980s he drove those working alongside him to play football at lunchtimes, having been a useful footballer while at school, even being picked to play for Birkenhead boys at Goodison Park. The matches would sometimes be a continuation of political discussions and debates, issues frequently resolved in the best of spirits over a beer in the local pub. The Militant team at one stage played various Labour Party clubs, including the Parliamentary Labour Party, and even some journalists on The Times newspaper. Devoted to his family and proud of their achievements, he drew on this experience often in discussions. 

Always open to meet and engage with others, including those not involved in the struggle, he often stated that Marxists can learn something from most individuals in all walks of life. It was a tool for him to understand and gauge society in all its varying aspects. On one occasion, flying back from a meeting in Barcelona, the former Tory MP and Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitkin boarded the plane. Aitkin put his brief case in the overhead locker which then was about to crash down onto him. Peter sitting behind him leapt up and grabbed the case. Unbeknown to Aitkin, injury was prevented by a leading Trotskyist! Peter lamented at the time that he would have liked to have spoken to Aitkin just to grasp a little more of what our opponents are made. Similarly, in 2016 when visiting BBC studios for a televised discussion with former left-wing journalist Paul Mason, he engaged in conversation with right-wing Tory Brexiteer John Redwood, who confided to Peter that if then prime minister David Cameron lost the EU referendum, he was “toast”! 

Sadly, our movement has lost Peter and his larger-than-life drive and enthusiasm. However, his contribution will remain in what he leaves behind politically and theoretically, including the many articles and books he wrote which are an invaluable resource for future generations entering struggle and discovering the socialist and Marxist ideas that can change the world. Peter’s lasting contribution also remains in the decisive role he played in assisting the political development of those who will continue to build the CWI in his absence. His legacy will therefore live on – a lasting testimony to the unique contribution made by Peter Taaffe to working class struggle and the revolutionary socialist movement. 

Tony Saunois 
Bob Labi 
Hannah Sell 
Niall Mulholland 
TU Senan 
Judy Beishon 
Sean Figg 

– International Secretariat of the CWI