*.. the Right to Work Campaign has had some success, but it is no substitute Photo: CHRIS DAVIES (Report)
Manication i party and we still play a very small role in the labour movement. We have to grow. But we are a party and we do play a role, we intervene.' Obviously, given the definition IS cannot be denied the label. But let us pause a moment. On the same definition, surely the WRP is a party — or at least it was, when at its peak. And even the IMG could claim to be something of a party in this sense - if a smaller one - as its intervention and penetration have undoubtedly improved since the early 1970s when it was almost wholly student in composition. It has some influence here and there in class struggle; not so much as us, but then are we really leading so many workers that we can say for certain that there is a qualitative difference? It is certainly capable of doing what has actually forced the issue of a 'party" for us — standing a modest number of candidates in parliamentary elections. And to take the other main criterion which Hallas produces, that 'Most workers, students and so on who come close to us take it for granted that we are a party and have done for years. We used to be regarded as the "IS party"" Surely this too applies to the WRP, the IMG, and maybe even the WSL, who also have a real if localised penetration. Of course the WRP is in decline — the "semi-religious fanaticism' is finally waning in attraction. But the IMG, WSL, and even the smaller grouplets are far from disappearing. In the case of the IMG, the 'entry tactic' appears to be losing its attraction, which means
IS/SWP. Is that such a bad thing? What I am suggesting to you is-that the SWP may be one, the largest, mini-party on the left, but it has not so clearly escaped from the same little multi-party and group system. Paradoxically, the period of our most obvious supremacy in this league is already past - I would locate it in the years 1967 to 1973. Then we grew very fast, while the WRP stagnated in sectarian isolation, the IMG was addicted to student ultraleftism, and most of today's other groups had not been born (the Militant too had not produced the modest results which they have since achieved in the Labour Party). It is surely the case that our hegemony at this time had a lot to do with our open and non-sectarian attitude to the creation of the socialist party, as expressed in Party and Class.
The objective circumstances of the last few years have certainly been difficult -but can all the problems and losses of IS in this period be explained in these terms? Is it not also the organisational sectarianism of IS in the last few years, our certainty that by ourselves we are building the party, and the related changes in policy and internal which have disillusioned many existing and would-be members? Haven't we helped the rest of the revolutionary groups to grow at our expense, when we weren't actually spawning new mini-sects?
Looking at the terms in which Hallas posed the problem of the party in 1971, it is not clearly the case that the SWP is the body capable of attracting the industrial militants who used to look to the CP, or the radicalised young workers and students, let alone the black, feminist and white-collar activists. Most of these people will see the revolutionary left as made up of several groups - they will vary in their perception according to industry and locality. Many will join other groups, and even more Join none at all, partly because IS persists in the hopeless pretence that the rest of the revolutionary left does not matter. Even Hallas admits that there are 'some good people in what he calls 'the grouplets and splinters'."
You will not win them by turning your backs on what Hallas calls 'the squabbles of sects, but which happen often to be quite serious arguments presented by these same 'good people'. Even less will you win them by ignoring them in practical situations in which they do have some imporfahte The absurd situation which will arise in the Stechford by-election, where SWP and IMG candidates will be competing, is a case in point, although there are clearly many others in the trade unions (such as the conflict between Thornett [WL] and Riley [Right to Work] in the TGWU election), in industrial and anti-cuts struggles, in student unions, etc. No doubt the SWP, with Paul Foot, will do better than the IMG in Stechford, but will this be as true where no Foot is available? And does not the competition harm both of us, and with it the very cause of revolutionary socialism?
The revolutionary socialist party which is candidates will be competing... does not the needed in this country will only be created drawing together wide range of elements such as Hallas described in 1971, including some at least of the forces now in other revolutionary organisations. This is obviously not to be done by an 'open' unity call such as IS issued in 1968, which only gives the opportunity for small sectarian groups to practice entrism on a larger organisation. Any reunification will have to result from a genuine acknowledgement of the inadequacy of present factional lines on the left. It must include a real resolve not to simply reproduce these factions within a united party. It is clear that this basis does not at the moment exist with any of the groups on the revolutionary left, even with those which call for regroupment'.
Sectarian nonsense still rife: for example, a leader of the IMG still finds it necessary to propagate the inaccurate view that most of those who hold the view that Russia is a form of state capitalism .... have passed over the class line into support for capitalism and imperialism', while patronisingly conceding that some of us may be genuine revolutionaries."* This same writer only considers unity in the context of state capitalist marxists joining the Fourth International, which is surely begging the important questions involved in any sort of political unity. So long as this sort of approach persists - but perhaps not all of the leaders of the IMG would agree with it - there are real barriers to a unification. But it is still essential, when leaders of significant groupings are willing to talk about unity, to do two things. One, we must spell out the kind of unification of the revolutionary left which would be meaningful. Two, we must discuss the kinds of well short of unification, which would be possible now.
Indeed, I do not believe that your patronising and sectarian attitude to the rest of the revolutionary left in Britain can be squared with other positions you hold. The most important contradiction is between your policy in this country and your position internationally. Here, you believe, *The most important contradiction is between your from IS really counts. But internationally... you see BATTLE OF IDEAS June 1977 3 no organisation apart from IS really counts. But internationally, both within individual countries and in the construction of international links, you see regroupment as inevitable. Reunification in Italy, Spain or France is fine (although naturally and correctly you will point out the dangers of unity on an inadequate political basis, as in Italy). And international discussions on a political level are apparently possible, for you, with quite diverse groups - the Maoist Avanguardia Operaia in Italy, or even the Fourth Internationalist LCR in France. The only criteria seems to be size and effectiveness, within a fairly wide political range. Then why not enter into political discussions with groups in Britain which have fairly close political positions, such as the IMG? If indeed the SWP's international discussions ever get past the preliminary stages, it is likely to turn out that the major organisations in other countries will look at the British revolutionary left in a broader light, and ask how can we ignore the other main groups here.
This problem is most obviously going to arise with organisations affiliated to the Fourth International. Certainly, democratic centralist international is possible in the present period, and definitely not on the simple basis of an enlarged FI. But we shall have to come to terms with the importance of the Fl. It is in many ways closer to the SWP than are other organisations. It has moved a long way from the compromised position on Stalinism which it held in the late '40s and early "50s wher we broke with it; it has overcome much of its ultra-leftism of the late 1960s. These again are points we cannot afford to ignore.
A further contradiction in your position is that the SWP claims to be building a party of the Leninist type, and has modelled itself closely in quite a few respects on the early experience of the Communist Party of Great Britain. But was not that party formed, at Lenin's direct insistence, by the fusion of political groups far more diverse, and far less close in their ideas to Bolshevism, than are many of the groups on the revolutionary left today? If we accept that fusion as correct, what princip led reason can there be for refusing today even to try to find points for collaboration with other groups who are working with much of the same political tradition? It is. of course, more than a question of formal politics, as we have found in the past with for example the SLL (now WRP) who were quite close to us superficially on some very important questions, but whose utter sectarianism has usually made the most refusal to cooperate with a group like the IMG which has always been much more open, and whose level of sectarianism has declined considerably in recent years.
Perhaps I should repeat the argument behind the approach to unity which 1 am advocating. It is, in essence, the argument behind IS's traditional approach to buildBATTUE OF IDEAS June 1977
ing the revolutionary party. I am not simply arguing for cobbling together the existing groups of the revolutionary left. Far more important for a future socialist party than the members of all the other groups combined are the many thousands of active socialists and trade unionists who look to the revolutionary left, oscillating perhaps between it and the Labour left or the CP, and yet are repelled by its disunity. I agree with you absolutely that the real present and future vanguard of socialism and workers' struggle is not mainly in the existing political groups. But these are part of it, and the disunity and sectarianism between the groups is disturbing to every serious socialist and militant. Even if the SWP did establish overwhelming supremacy on the revolutionary left which you think it already has, our sectarianism towards the other groups would still hold back many a good activist. As it is, the problem of winning to a socialist party of the wider vanguard which is involved in cruitment all the complex political and organisational problems of the advanced workers and socialists in Britain, problems of which you used to be so aware? Has the IS tradition really proved so overwhelmingly powerful that it alone forms the basis for a party?
There was a time, when you still maintained more of that tradition, when it seemed as though it might be able achieve the broad and deep roots in the working class which would make it the main foundation for a party. This was precisely because it was an open tradition: we were open both in our ideas and in our methods to the experience and understanding of workers outside IS, of people involved in many different sorts of social and political movements on the left, and (last but not least), of all our members. So much of this has been lost in recent years, and with it many of the most experienced members and a good deal of the influence of IS. So is the formation of the Socialist
----- pull-quotes -----
The absurd situation which will arise in the Stechford by-election, where the SWP and IMG
rouge quotidien communiste révolutionnaire even the Fourth Internationalist LCR in France.' SINOCRAT regroupment as inevitable.' competition harm both of us, and with it the very cause of revolutionary socialism?'
... international discussions on a political level are apparently possible, for you, with quite diverse groups — the Maoist Avanguardia Operaia in italy, or quotidiano dei lavoratori
policy in this country and your position inter- nationally. Here, you believe, no organisation apart
minimal cooperation impossible. But this is an extreme case, which could hardly justify