From an Essex Correspondent,
Recent issues of Comment have included mipplements containing letters which discuss resolutions for the coming CP Congress. In the 9th March issue, a Brixton reader made a plea for more thooretical debate : "IJ would suggest that a real attempt at a Marxist estimation of questions such as coexistence, role of imperialism in 1963, an estimation of 'rev isionism' and'dognatism', the role of the colonial revolutions and of the uncommitted nations is neoded. Have we no new light on the transition to socialism since the last draft of the British Road.?" A week later, Peter Seltman (Preston) etiticised tho draft political resolution. In particular he opposed the aim of transforming the Labour Party es the primary lino of struggle within the working class : " Despite the presence at Various times of sincere, devoted working cless members of the Labour Party, this Party is the product of political perversion of the class struggle in Britain, It has developed in this way with the direct encom agement of the bourgeoisio....sseeee.This is not a temporary condition of the Labour Party, It has been a permanent feature of the Labour Farty from its beginnings. As long as the Labour Party exists within the franework of the bourgeois state this condition will also exist,"
This same contrititor was even more critical of the attitude towards Parliament +: "Section 3,lines 136-9 state 'soveroignity would be transforred from the people and Parliament to tureaucratic commissions, acting on behalf of the Common Market, with powers to givo directions over-riding Parliament’. Wheat does 'would be! mean 7? Does sovercignity now rest in the hands of Parliament and tho people 7 If we moan this, thonwe are revising without comment all previous Marxist-Leninist views of the State, since parliaments are not separated from, mt are part of the state machine. The implication is that Parliament is, or can ba, independent of class...e..-,5ince the ralations of parliaments to the state machine of capitalism is ona of the chief issues now under discussion anternationally, it is amazing that this Resolution refers to it only in two places,"
In the last issue,(March 23rd), Muriel Seltman (Barnet) compares the political resolution unfavourably with the 1960 Moscow Statement of the 61 Parties + "The imperialists mst ba forced to accept peaceful co-existence and the weakening of imperialism anywhere in the world.is the only effective way of doing this." She contimes, "Nowhere in the Draft Political Resolution is the anti-imperialist struggle i#en- -tified with the struggle for peaceful co-existence, Surely the call for withdrawl of British ovorseas troops of occupation should be accompanied by a positive statement of solidarity with all colonial peoples fighting for their independence and especinlly those who have been forced into armed struggle in Brunei, Adem and Oman ? These national liberation movenents are in the forefront of the strugglé for peacesesersse”
Note : "Comment"published by the British Commm ist Party, is the
successor of "World Nows". Readers aro probably more familiar
with it under this > revious namo.