1 and a number of comrades from There are a number of reasons for The - a review that was given to you You thereby give the impression to prevent ot ihe BSA CHatEC - the striet had always they write strictly in a If you have criticism of this policy, it of anas neune edited our.
IHOHS.
ONCE again you have knifed in the back the six anarchists now facing CUlSOHaL LaLIS explosions. The first time was when the arrests hirst started and you IS printed a sanctimonious article about how the International Marxist Group warned against the "polities of despair' - and this at a their time when not even the bourgeois press had convicted the arrested (they still haven't been committed for trial).
The next time was when you stalled an article from Persons Unkowr suppert group commenting on this CasuC When eventually you did publish it, it was with all the bits criticising yourselves Now, in Richard Carver's article on the staie (2 November), you add slander and innuendo to your record READING your unsigned article on *Marxist theory and the British labour movement' (23 November) reminded me of an editorial 1 had read on the same subject in an carly issue of International Socialism. The fact that 1 recalled this so many years after its publication in 1961, when 1 first read il, reflects not only the rarity of such essays but also the impression which it made on me at the lime. When I reread il, I found a comparison with the present arncie migmy mannnaung Compared the Socialist Challenge article il possesses the great advantage of recognising that there are two sides to the question - Marxis theory and the British labour movement - which must be brought into a dialectical relationship with each other as they exist in reality, as against the one-sided and doctrinaire approach of the author of your article.
Ine point wish lo make is that unless revolutionary Marxism can become fused with at least a part of ihe British labour movement and its tradsuch as the Socialist Workers Party, then it can never become an effective political force in this country Surely this is self-evident, but it is so often ignored, though it appears to have been understood at least once in If I seem to have been suddenly re-converted to the 'IStradition' (and I nave tais s nor becausc i bcueve umal •OWn particular dogmatic schematism was correct - this has been disproved often enough - but because of this specinic close and dialectical relationship with the actual British labour movement, and what the editorial called its "self-changing activity".
In this respect, the old IS editorial still seems to me to be one of the best surviving expressions OWid wal once most positive in the "IStradition', which we need to recian and learn JOHN STRAUTHER [Liverpool]
----- pull-quotes -----
AND TONY PARSONS 'Knifed in back'