against the Labour they vote for Communist Party candidates?
which we give to them.
Was the ILP correct in running as muny candidates as possible in the recent General Elections, even at the risk of splitting the vote?
Yes. It would have been foolish for the ILP to have sacrificed its political programme in the interests or so-cale unny, to allow the Labour Party to monopolise the platform..
There is always a risk of splitting. and deposits, but such risks must be taken. Otherwise we boycott ourselves.
Was the TIP correct in refusing critical support to Lalour Party advocated military sunctions?
No...It should have critical support to all Labour Party candidates, i.e. where the ILP was not itself contesting...
The Labour Party should have been critically supported not because it was for or against sanctions, but because represented the working class masses..
The war crisis does not alter the fact that the Labour Partyis a workers' party. which governmental party is not. Nor does it alter the fact that the Labour Party leadership cannot fulfil their promises, they will betray the confidence which the masses place in them...
Revolutionists never critical support to reformism the assumption satisfy the fundamental needs of the workers...
No, in war as in peace, the ILP must say to the workers: 'The Labour Party will deceive you and betray you, but you do not believe us. Very well, we ences with you, but in no case do we identify ourselves with SHOULD revolutionary Marxists stand in elections Party? Should they conditions on voting for Labour candidates? Should Many people are grappling with these questions for the first time in this general election. But the questions themselves are not new; nor are the answers losing the the Labour Party programme.* Morrison, Clynes, etc. [the Labour leaders] that certain prejudices workers, When the ILP socks to boycott Clynes it helps Baldwin [the Tory leader) but Clynes himself.
LINL If successful in its tactic, the could that IL.P prevents the Clynes, of the government, and so prevents exposure The workers will say Morrison in power, only we had Clynes wouid have been better It is argued that the Labou Party already stands exposed by its pust deeds in power and its present reactionary platplace 1935-36 (Pathfinder Press). form. For us — yes! But not for the masses, represent millions who voted Labour. of the Let us suppose that the ILP had been successful in a boycott DOE tactic, had won workers to follow it, and that it was the absence of this million votes which lost the election for clection of war came the masses Labour the war camel would in their disillusionment turnto the Labour Party, not to us.
and If soviets were formed during things the war the soldiers would elect Labour Party people to them, not us. Workers wouls still say that we handicapped Labour.
But if support and by that means Party capitalist marched with them.
not betray. replace for power.
it...
sharply the clections than Led the Labour Party leaders deficiencies of the eight Party without advantages true million means.
masses the purpose leadership, HAVe critical leadership. helped the Labour Parly lo power, at the same time telling the workers that the Labour would function as a and would direct a capitalist war -then, when war came, workers would sce that we predicted rightly, at the same time that we We would be elected to the soviets, and the soviets would 5 a general principi volutionary party has t right lo boycott parliament only when it has the capacity to overthrow it, that is, when it parliamentary action by general strike and insurrection, by direct struggle In Britain the masses have yet no confidence in the ILP. The
----- pull-quotes -----
A clear statement of the basic principles at stake was given by Leon Trotsky more than forty years ago in an interview with a member of the centrist Independent Labour Party in November 1935. Below we reprint the most relevant extracts; the full text can be found in Writings of Leon Trotsky