Don't hidise Bern

Scan page 8

Dear Sur/Madam, Every so often 1 buy the paper Socialist Press. Some of the articles I find very good. Some 1 find very bad.

I bought it the other dayNo 217. I do not agree with your headline and article, which pointed out the shortcomings of Tony Benn, Duffy etc.

I do not agree because your stand will lead to confusion! How is it possibie for a socialist organisation to ignore the mood which is sweeping the country since the Labour Party Conference?

lo many, Benn is the radical socialist who will transform society -given the chance.

I feel it should be your duty to support Benn all the way, but pointing out his mistakes as well. This must be the correct attitude.

On the same topic, putting Benn in the same camp as Duffy leads only to confusion.

Cheers.

I have not signed my name because it is your traditionno-one signs their name in the If our reader looked at the paper more often he would • see that we by no means ignore the mood which is sweeping the country since the Labour Party conference'.

We entirely support the movements to democratise the party and to prevent the repetition of the betrayals of former Labour governments.

• We support every move that Benn, or anybody else, takes in this direction. However we do not consider that Benn, adhering as he does to a perspective of seeking to reform capitalism through Parliament will pursue the issue as far as is necessary.

We hope that the comrade who wrote the letter will help us test this out in practice.

We would certainly be prepared to fill a page with letters on this issue-and similar topics of debate in the labour movement. We would encourage readers, (anonymous or not!) to write to us setting out their views. Dear Comrade Editor, The test of any organisation which is seriously fighting to build a revolutionary party is as much its ability to recognise important political developments and draw the necessary attempts to liquidate it.

Recent issues of Socialist Press show graphically that the Workers Socialist League is able to do the former as well as the latter.

I would like to continue the debate which has begun since the historic developments which took place at the Labour Party conference and take up where comrade Lister left off in his reply to Colin Morrow and William G. (Socialist Press 219).

It is interesting to note that even comrades Morrow and G. seem to have been affected by the clear manifestation of a significant shift to the left by a whole section of the Labour Who would have thought even a few weeks ago that such principled "granite hard" Bolsheviks as Morrow and G. would have referred to Tony Benn as a centrist?

Leaving aside whether or not this is a correct scientific description of Benn the important point is that the unchallengeable fact which Trotskyists have to face is that something significant is happening to the A combination of the pressure from the working class, a clear failure of successive Labour governments to make any impact on the chaotic effects of capitalist crisis and the clear decision of the ruling class to launch a major assault on the working • class have produced a major ferment which reaches right to the top of left social democracy.

The recognition by Socialist Press of the emergence of a new anti-capitalist mass movement must be followed quickly by a wide-ranging discussion amongst Trotskyists of what needs to be done now to make serious steps towards regrouping and politically sharpening that movement into an instrument which can be used by the working class-a revolutionary party.

The central arena of the fight for a revolutionary programme must now become the The time when it was necessary to build organisations outside the mass party of the workers' movement is now over.

Trotskyists K have always sought to stand alongside other socialist currents within the Labour Party fighting for our policies and perspectives.

The real "entrists" are those such as David Owen, Shirley Williams and Reg Prentice-the people who through their bureaucratic hold on the party and their openly pro-capitalist programme have witch-hunted revolutionaries out or demoralised them into leaving in disgust.

If revolutionaries adopt a fraternal approach to those who are fighting the Callaghans and Healeys of this world and debate out the elements of our strategy then the days of left organisations numbering only hundreds will be over and a new stage in the fight for a revolutionary programme will be on the agenda.

One final comment-the development of the class struggle tests out all those organisations claiming to be revolutionary, also throws into perspective the differences which have led the Trotskyists to form different organisations. It is to be hoped the tremendous opportunities opening up before us will force us all to question the significance of the many petty differences which have prevented us from combining our resources for the great task we have to face.

It is, therefore, particularly heartening to me to note that Socialist Press 219 reports the agreement of supporters of ments to the conference called by Lambeth Council.

Roll on the day when supporters of these two papers can stop competing and produce one journal.

Yours fraternally, Coventry Editor's *It is only fair to point out in reply to comrade K.W. that Socialist Press and Socialist Organiser are not so much "competing" with each other as struggling to carry, out very different political tasks.

For Socialist Organiser, the perspective is to map, out a minimum basis of principled agreement for the formation of a left wing current within the For Socialist Press, the task we set is to spell out as fully as possible the full programme for the building of a revolutionary party, drawing forces from the whole labour and trade union movement-including of course many elements who are not currently active Labour Party supporters.

There are obviously important areas in which these two different tasks overlap, and joint work is possible on a principled basis. We welcome such joint initiatives.

But the outstanding political difference centres precisely on the extent to which political work in the next period must centre on the Labour Party as such, and how much emphasis needs to be placed on the development of a Marxist programme and the building of an independent revolutionary party.

Socialist Press has stressed the view that the Labour Party is a central arena of the fight for revolutionary programme: but it is not the exclusive centre for such a struggle!

The, ongoing struggle of Trotskyist Ted Heslin against his expulsion from Oxford City Labour Party for selling Socialist Press confirms that there are many problems in simply seeking to wage a fight for socialism in the Labour If we accept comrade K.W.'s definition of "entrists" then we must recognise that it is still "entrists" who in many areas control most of the machinery of the Labour Party -while important forces in the fight for socialism remain alienated by years of Labour betrayals, and outside its ranks.

To combat this, a campaign against all bans and proscriptions against socialists in the Labour Party is needed. It can now take place in far more favourable conditions than previously: it is essential that the fight on socialist policies and for democratic procedures be broadened to incorporate this demand. tion to the Communist Party line.

Others in the group were also ILP members. Only later when the Marxian League split, did Dewar, Graham, etc join the struggle of the Trotskyists inside the Communist Party. On top of this, the Communist League itself recruited four members of the ILP and used them to distribute their propaganda for Trotskyism in the ranks of that party.

I feel that neither the speaker, nor your report, appear to be aware of this and the impression is maintained that the ILP's first contact with Trotskyism was the entry of Harber and the others.

This impression, I am sure, does not stem trom any conscious intention to distort the facts, but it seems so common in all the discussions of the history of our movement during that period that I feel obliged to write to you about it.

Incidentally also, deliberate blanket of silence does appear to have been placed over the history of the Marxian League of Frank Ridley and Chandu Ram ("Aggrawala') by all who discuss the early period of Trotskyism in this country, which I consider to be doing history a disservice.

In spite of Ridley's rather individual views, his pioneering role should not be undervalued: quite a few of the later talented recruits to the Trotskyism movement received their first training in his organisationDr Worrall, Max Nicholls, Gerry Bradley, Dewar etc.

Finally, I feel I should bring this rather long letter to a close by informing your readers of the sad deaths of so many of the veterans of the movement in this year.

Apart from Dewar-whose last letter to me setting the historical record straight should be published by someone-we have also lost Frederick Marzillier, who shared with Matlow the organising of the Marxist Group in the ILP and Arthur Cooper, Trotsky's old opponent in the discussion over Labour Party entry in 1936, who continued faithful to the movement throughout many vicissitudes.

If you feel incapable of publishing the rest of the letter due to length and content, 1 would be most grateful if you would at least pass on this unwelcome news to your readers.

Fraternally, Al Richardson.

----- pull-quotes -----

strategie conclusions as it is to detend the programme against

Socialist Organiser and Socialist Press to present joint amend-