Once Again – The Summit

[p003] (I) Once Again — The Summit “WHO was right about the summit talks? Here ‘we had an important test for all those who claim to be socialists The Communist Party, Labour MPs from Left to Right and the New Left all ‘supported the call for summit talks. The Marx- ists, represented by the Socialist Labour League, insisted that these talks could not resolve the serious threat of World War Three. Our editorial in the October-November, 1959, issue of Labour Review ‘Socialists and the Sum- mit’ should be compulsory reading for our critics. Two quotations from this editorial underline the superiority of the Marxist method as against those who serve the power politics of British and United States imperialism or the power politics of the Soviet bureaucracy. ‘Who, then, will meet at the Summit? The representatives of US imperialism, Republican or Democrat, the representatives of British imperial- ism, Tory or Social Democratic, and the Stalinist leaders of the Soviet bureaucracy. In point of fact the most important “camp” in world politics will not be represented, and it will be a conference of leaders who fear the strength of the working class and will come to agreements based on the hopeful assumption, each in his own terms, that the struggle of the working class can be arrested. Thus the working class is the common enemy that must be “contained”, This common front against the work- ing class will not be the subject of precise written agreements; the Soviet bureaucracy defends nation- alized property in the USSR by methods of its own, not relying on the development of the revolu- tionary movement; the capitalists faced with the colonial revolution and the threat of economic crisis and by industrial struggles, will be grateful for Khrushchev’s guarantee of the peaceful inten- tions of Stalinism which holds back the working- class movement wherever the Communist Parties have influence. ... ‘Marxists must take their stand firmly. Only the strengthening and growing revolutionary con- sciousness of the working class is a safeguard against war. Defeats for the working class are in the long run steps towards war, and such defeats are prepared by all those who spread illusions about forces other than the working class itself achieving peace. Macmillan is not a “representa- tive” whom we push to the Summit, he is a leader of the class enemy who must be defeated. He does not represent the working class in any shape or form. If he goes to the Summit and makes agree- ments, they will be in the interests of his class, not of the working class. The first thing Marxists must say to the working class about such people is: they have been on the Summit too long; our job is to get them off, not to keep them there.’ Shortly before we wrote these lines, the Daily Worker waged a campaign against what it called the ‘die-hards’ who opposed Ike. Now that Mr. Khrushchev has supplied them with the latest line that Ike is in fact himself a die-hard, the Daily Worker merrily switches its attack to Eisenhower as if nothing had happened. This is a perfect example of Stalinist method—follow and support the Soviet leadership in whatever it does, no matter where such enthusiasm may take you. The breakdown of the summit talks under- lines once again that the real decisions in the world today cannot be made exclusively by the Statesmen of either the imperialist or the Soviet blocs. There are people who speculate, with ‘ some weight to their arguments, that Khrushchev really wanted the Paris talks to succeed. That may well be so, but the opinions of. the Chinese had to be taken into account. Unlike the Soviet bureaucracy, the rulers of China are still very much under the influence of the colonial revolu- tion. They are forced to consider their relations with the imperialist powers from the standpoint of the fortunes of this revolution and not from the status quo between themselves and imperial- ism. It was precisely for this reason that Stalin himself did not want the Chinese revolution to succeed. He never gave up hoping for a deal with Chiang Kai-shek. Although steeped in Stalinist ideology, just as Tito was, the Chinese Communist Party leaders were forced by the enormous revolutionary impact which swept the continent of Asia at the end of the war to put an end once and for all to imperialism, its pup- pet warlords and Chiang Kai-shek. . Suddenly, on the eve of the summit talks, the Chinese leaders discovered that Lenin had after all a very different opinion on the struggle against imperialist war from the present Moscow over- lords. In this respect their statements are in many ways similar to those of British Marxists. The Communist Party in Britain carefully avoids a discussion on the significance of the Chinese statements. They are frightened lest the

[p004] 38 next wave of ‘revisionists’ in the party should be- gin their theoretical struggle against the inept King Street leadership by adhering to the Chinese . policies in relation to the fight against world imperialism. Khrushchev’s dilemma underlines again that it has not been possible for either he or his fellow bureaucrats in the Kremlin to restore Stalinism and its method of rule. The 20th Congress speech marked an historic departure and some of the results can be seen in the recent collapse LABOUR REVIEW — June-July, 19606 of the summit. The struggle for peace is inseparable from the struggle against imperialism. The Labour move- ment in Britain must relate its daily struggle for living conditions and for a socialist society to the fight against the war makers. This is the real lesson to be learned. Is it too much to hope that many of those who have been so dangerously misled over the summit should now re-examine the policy offered by the Marxists of the Social- ist Labour League in the struggle against war? ID The Labour Party Crisis THIS year’s annual conference of the Labour Party promises to be one of historic importance. Since the special conference held at the end of November, 1959, the situation inside the Party has gone from bad to worse. It is clear that ~ neither the Left, the Right nor the centre have any longer the slightest hope of healing the breach which grows wider as the days go by. Gaitskell’s speech at the special conference had © as its main object an attack on any move to ex- tend nationalization to the basic industries. He has followed this up with an addendum to the. constitution which, if carried at the conference, would place the now famous Clause Four in cold storage. Whilst it is perfectly true that Gait- skell has been successful on this issue it is equally true that the Right-wing cannot hope to main- tain the unity of the party on this policy. Since the trade unions are based on the working class they are more immediately affected by the un- certainties of the economic situation. Despite the boom and a relatively high level of employ- ment, the outlook for the future remains unstable. Nationalization will be constantly posed inside the Labour movement. It is all very well for Mr. Gaitskell to write off Clause Four, but the things that it stands for are still very much burn- ing issues inside the movement. This year’s conference will most likely go on record against the manufacture of the H-bomb. Here we have the outcome of three years of campaigning inside the Labour Party and the trade unions. The resolution rejected at Brighton in 1957 seems likely to become in all essentials the policy of the Labour Party in 1960. Domestic and foreign affairs are drawing closer together. This is the real political driving force for the present stage of the struggle inside the Labour Party. As the crisis becomes more insoluble, so does tension mount, especially in the leadership. Right-wing trade union leaders launch violent personal attacks against the Left. Right-wing Labour politicians, such as Woodrow Wyatt, launch violent attacks against centrist trade union leaders like Frank Cousins. A_ whole number of lesser personalities such as Shinwell mount the rostrum to denounce one another at week-end meetings. In the midst of this con- fusion Morgan Phillips takes the floor and as usual in the name of party unity proceeds to outline a proposal which would almost certainly split the Labour Party if carried out. The arch- priest of officialdom proposes that the policy of the Parliamentary Labour Party should not be governed by the decisions taken at the annual conference of the Labour Party. It was all very well, you see, when the block vote of the big unions, under the leadership of such stalwarts as Arthur Deakin and Will Lawther, was cer- tain to go to the Right, but now that the voting. pendulum swings the other way Mr. Phillips thinks that the past history of the Labour Party was after all a grave mistake. What is now needed is to create a situation where the rank and file, whether through the block vote or the votes of the constituency Labour Parties are powerless so far as any effective control over the Parliamentary Labour Party is concerned. It is absolutely certain that the party and a substan- tial portion of the trade unions will have nothing to do with this proposal. Every informed person realises, of course, that in practice the Parliamentary Labour Party has in the past enjoyed almost complete freedom from the decisions of party conference. But just as in the case of nationalization and Clause Four, the crisis of our times permits little room for such manoeuvres in the future. In other words, social democracy has reached the gravest crisis in its history. The question that now arises, and which the

[p005] THE LABOUR PARTY CRISIS Left must seek to answer without delay, is as tol.ows: “Why do Morgan Phillips, Gaitskell, Woodrow Wyatt, Sir fnomas Williamson and their ilk press so nard on the proposals in relation to Clause Four, and in their support for the foreign policy of the Tory government? Why do they want to cut the Parliamentary Labour Party loose from the authority of the party conference?’ The more one reads the speeches of these gentle- men, the more we are forced to realize how deter- mined they are. It is all very well for the democrats of the New Statesman to speak long- ingly about the flexibility of Lord Attlee, but this does not offer the slightest consolation in the pre- sent dilemma. The Right-wing are determined to force the issue inside the Labour Party and the trade unions. They do not want to be tied any longer to a party committed to nationaliza- tion of the basic industries under conditions where the Parliamentary Labour Party would have to carry out the decisions of conference if it took power. Gaitskell and company definitely want to get rid of socialism once and for all, so far as the Labour Party is concerned. They have made their minds up about that. The crisis building up inside the Labour Party now contains, in fact, the ingredients of a major split. Even if Mr. Gaitskell is defeated on the H-bomb issue at the Labour Party conference there is no guarantee that he will automatically resign as leader when the election takes place in the Parliamentary Labour Party. He may, in fact, be re-elected and he may, even, defy the decision of the party conference. By proposing constitutional changes Morgan Phillips is hiding the real facts about what he knows to be a serious crisis. The question is: who is to replace Gaitskell? It is clear that the illness of Aneurin Bevan has proved to be a disastrous blow for all those who wish to hold back a major Left development in- side the Labour Party. There is not the slightest doubt that if he were physically fit the leader- ship would be his for the asking. We have, therefore,-a most dangerous situation for the reformists. The Labour Party is _ threatened with a split from the Right. Considerable pres- sure from the trade union rank and file has suc- ceeded in altering policy at the top of some major unions. Constituency parties are ready and waiting for a lead to the Left. This is where a great vacuum arises. Who will lead the Left? There is only one force capable of ushering in a genuine socialist leadership and that is the Marxists, organized in the Socialist Labour League. The power behind this force is not the publicity value of the personalities in its leader- 39 ship but the historical correctness of the ideas which it advocates. It was in order to deal a blow against these ideas that the Socialist Labour League was proscribed last year. Contrast this brutal treatment of the Left with the way in which Gaitskell condones the actions of Alfred Robens as he proceeds to take charge of the Tory pians io dismantle the nationalized mining in- dustry. But the proscription of the Socialist Labour League did not resolve the major prob- lem which Marxism poses for the Right-wing. As the crisis deepens, more and more people are being drawn towards fresh political consideration of the major problems of our time. In this respect the confused ideas of Mr. Crossman can- not even be considered as a minor stop-gap. Behind the demand for the extension of national- ization is a firm belief that Socialism is necessary. Behind the struggle to stop the manufacture of the H-bomb is a firm belief in working-class internationalism and a determination to fight the preparations for World War Three. Behind the powerful sympathy which the rank and file of the British Labour movement extended to the South African people lies the feeling that no matter what the colour of our skins we face and fight a common enemy. Marxism, and a Marxist leadership, is the only force which can fill the void on the Left. This explains the vicious way in which newspapers suc. as the News Chronicle constantly attempt to smear and distort the policy of the Socialist Labour League. The News Chronicle speaks for that rump. which was once known as the Liberal Party. These elements are painfully aware of the vacuum that is growing and the fact that they are unable to do anything about it. So they rely on smears and witch-hunting to weaken the Marxist movement. The second annual conference of the Socialist Labour League decisively rejected the sectarian conception that this was the period to launch an independent revolutionary party of the work- ing class. We firmly believe that the time is - coming when such a party will have to be launched. But it is important to understand that we are not yet at that stage. The Socialist Labour League will continue to encourage all those who want to challenge Gaitskell and the threatened split from the Right to turn their attention to work inside the Labour Party and trade union movement for a socialist policy that will unite all those who stand for colonial free- dom and independence, those who struggle to end the manufacture of the H-bomb and those who want to extend nationalization to all the basic industries in Britain. Now is the supreme testing time for British Marxists.

[p006] 40