1 eae ee pa ®t — si sit Pe yo - f { y i oT : t
i i
rp é
oe ee j he te ibe HS ies tot aL
mf Sie : EE (or ¢ Y i }
ee a ETT | Vol. 1 No. 41 Price Threepence Oct 10th 1962 NiNT SITUATION IN LABOUR PARTY AFTER BRIGHTON.
Blsewhere in this Bulletin there is a comprehensive report of the recent Brighton Conference of the Labour Party and an estimation of the results of that conference. ‘We find ourselves in complete agreement with this report and will not therefore repeat the arguments of that articlo. We would, however, like to put the Brighton Conference in a wider setting.and draw some longer-term conclusions.
On the positive side, as our reporter points out, the defeat of the "muilt by association" amendment was a tremendous defeat for Brown. It also was a notable victory for the left which in some ways is more important than a victory on policy. The witch hunters will still be active but will work under tremendous difficulties, on the reverse side had the clause gone through the left would have beon viciously attacked (the results of which would have varied from area to erea, and sector to sector) and the struygle for left policies put back a whole poriod. Whilst one can fight from inside the party for a reversal of right wing policy victories, from the outside one first of all has to get back in again. The victory achieved on this front must be consolidated and pressure must be maintained for a reversal of previous witch-hunt decisions using to the full the defeat of the 'suilt by association! amendment. ‘We should argue to the full that Conference rejected the spirit of these actions if not the word.
On the negative side, Gaitskell's performance and his success in rallying large sections of the left behind his 'anti-Common Market' stand shows the dangers from the low political level of much of the left in the Labour Party. It would be weong to underestimate the significance of Gaitskell's change of line, which repres= ents a 'left' turn by a section of the Labour Party bureaucracy, and a turn away from Gaitskell's attcmpts to transform that Party into a non-working class party (at least for the time being). Such a maneouvre presontsto Marxists both opportunities and dangers. On the one hand, it is generally much easier to work and put forward left policies when the leadership has made a ‘left! shift, the party will prove more attractive to radical elements, it will be possible on the basis of such a move to get the party at local lavel to initiate enti-Tory and anti-capitalist activity. It offers to the marxists the chance of deeper integration and a wider eudience. On the other hand, terrible theoretical confusion has been created by the attempts of certain lefts to 'play a clever game', one which they will sreatly regret in the future. By hiding behind Gaitskell's skirts, caren of the left have created the conditions whereby Gaitskell has been able to hea@*d firm anti-Common liarket stand,
Gaitskell, faithful servant of the bourgeoisie, will never adopt:a policy which will seriously affect the interests of the capitalist class. British capita lism needs to enter the Common. Market and will not be deterred by the kind of opposition put up by Beaverbrook and Turton. In the final crunch Gaitskell will come out for the Common Market, the most probable variant being that after the Tories have taken us in,,and aftor we have a‘Labour Governnent, Gaitskell will find some formula for opposing revokation. of the Treaties taking Britain into the Market. The stage is set for this kind of move, especially in view of the N.W.G. resolution and the way certain lefts have trailed behind this resolution. More than ever the intervention on a clear class basis, avoiding the pitfalls of sectarianism, by Marxists is essential and potentially fruitful. ;