GAITSKELL’S DILEMMA }

SPEAKING at Nottingham last Saturday, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, using words reminiscent of the Praesidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and with a vehemence worthy of a better cause, denounced the opposition in the Labour Party as a ‘small professional anti-leadership group—the self-appointed opposition to those elected in the party to responsible positions’.

The reference was obviously to Michael Foot and those around him. Yet only a few weeks ago the same Mr. Gaitskell declined to reply to Foot’s attacks on the grounds that it would be ‘improper and undignified’.

Why, then, this splenetic outburst? The reason is obvious. Mr. Gaitskell was speaking on ‘an issue of the greatest possible practical significance’ (his words), namely, the revision of the party constitution and, in particular, of Clause 4.

Mr. Gaitskell it seems is in somewhat of a dilemma —the traditional dilemma of every revisionist. His opponents are very vocal but his own supporters are too scared to support him unequivocally in public. Mr. Gaitskell is very annoyed at this disloyalty. But there are others who by their congenital formalism and desire to conciliate make it extremely difficult for Mr. Gaitskell to lay his hands on Clause 4. Thus it seems that the greatest opposition—or lack of co-operation— comes from within the ranks of his supporters! Mr. Gaitskell is forced to make haste slowly.

In order to cover his retreat from Socialism Mr. Gaitskell scatters a few moth-eaten shibboleths to the public. ‘We shall need to extend the public sector... in the field of steel and road transport, certainly in water supplies (!) ...’ After this profound and brilliant contribution to socialist theory Mr. Gaitskell attacks the left for being ‘conservative’ and lacking in ‘imaginative, practical ideas’. Who said Mr. Gaitskell ‘was a ‘dessicated, calculating machine’ - Mr. Gaitskell’s reason for amending the constitution is that it is out-of-date. There is no doubt that the constitution of the Labour Party does not make provision for many changes, economic and political that have taken place since its adoption. The constitution for example, makes no provision for the acceptance of knighthoods and other such inducements by Labour leaders from the ruling class. But that is not the point at issue. Clause 4, despite its quaint Anglo-Saxon formulation which even Engels commented on, sums up the whole purpose-and historical mission of the British working class movement: the establishment of a socialist society and the ending of private ownership of the means of production. On this there can be no compromise—and Mr. Gaitskell knows it. He said: ‘I reflexion within the party of the immense pressures that are being exerted on the Labour bureaucracy by the capitalist class to straitjacket the labour movement ideologically and organizationally.

The fate of the Labour Party now hangs in the balance. Whether Gaitskell succeeds or not depends entirely on how the left in the Party and the unions acts. Only through a united, uncompiomising and organized struggle can Gaitskellism be defeated and the Labour Party be saved for socialism. The first condition for such a struggle is an atmosphere free of the threat of bureaucratic retaliation. In other words, an ending of all bans and proscriptions.

Those who, like Victory for Socialism, try to make an invidious distinction between the witch-hunt now developing against the centre and the purge of the revolutionary left in the Party are only making Gaitskell’s job easier.

We believe that the Socialist Labour League has a specific and important contribution to make in the struggle for policy and leadership in the Labour Party. Therefore we appeal to all those who are serious about fighting revisionism and bureaucracy in the Party to support our legitimate battle for affiliation.

That is the lesson of Gaitskell’s speech.

BOTTLEWORKERS .. . (Contined from front page) steps were taken to link up the group’s 14 factories, now letters have gone out appealing for support.

The local engineering union official, Bro. Hill, has asked his executive to back the dispute.

A victory for the Charlton men can prepare the way for a struggle to improve the low wages and bad conditions which prevail in the glass bottle industry. In the case of warehousemen wages are as low as £8 2s. 6d. for 45 hours and the men have to work in dangerous and filthy conditions. On certain operations the men breathe poisonous fumes, including arsenic.

The men will need to keep an eye on their leaders if they are to win. There is no doubt that the retreat at York encouraged the management at, Anchor Lane to attack the rank and file who had begun a fight for the £1 and the 40hour week.

Since this report was written, a mass meeting of the strikers on Wednesday, February 17, decided to stay on strike. The chairman of the meeting read telegrams from the Scottish factory and the St. Helens factory. The Scottish men say they will stop work in support of the Charlton men on Friday next, and the management have threatened to sack all those who strike. The St. Helens workers are to hold a mass meeting to decide on solidarity action.

Discussions will begin at the Ministry of Labour on Thursday morning at the request of the management.

OUT FEBRUARY 25th