(QDITORIAL NOT: The article which follows was submitted originally te * Socialist Review, which has now ceased publication. There is - need to take up ths wron;; ideas put forward by .lasdair iiacIntyre in a political f.shion, which this article attempts to do, The hatchet job done by “James Baker" in the current Labour Review is an excellent example of how net to polemicize. While making some currset points against liacIntyrs, ths Baker article concerns itself mainly with a subjective and spitsful exmination of !acIntyre's past and his personal notives. If one wishsd to adopt this technique, one could point out that "Janes Baker", whovue real nane is Dr, Frank Girling (a nane under which he has written in Labour Reviow, so that we are not giving away any military secrets) has written articies on .frica so “orthodox” that Her Iiajesty!s Stationery Office has not hesitated to publish them (he also wrete for the 3.1.4. Problems of dommnisn, almost the only British ¢.P. menber who left in 1956-7 to have dons SO )e This method leads nowh-ore. What is neoded is to take up wrong ideas and seck to correct them from a Marxist standpoint. )
"I have always said that the ons thing tht prevented the Lebour Party Setting into power and stayin; in power was our inherent tendency to argue." Thus liv. Gaitskell, repurted in The Cuardian on liay 7 and quoted by Alasdair ilacIntyre in his "Open Letter to a Right-wing Young Socialist" (Socialist Review, June 1962) There are even somes on the Left who, instancing the endless disputation anony Mar= Xists, would echo Gaitskell in a r-ther different context. Waturally the readers of this paper reject this view, not because they enjoy arzument about serious natters for its ow sake, but becuase they believe that the building of secialisn and t:s toking of power which will uake this possible, can proceed only on condition that the views of every tendency in the workin:;; class movernent be ventilated and tosted in the living experience of ths class.
That is why even socialists who have much in common are obliged to spend a jood deal of their tine arguing with each cther, It is why I now taks up the cudgels against both the underlying analysis of Alastair MacIntyre's article in the .pril Socialist Reviow and the practical conclusions he draws from it. "What has been predicted", writes !'acIntyre (and past issues of Sccialist Reviow and iInternstional Socialism bear unpleasing witness to this truth) "is the end of Trad~ itional social-denceratic politics and an Anericanization of tho political scene", 48 a matter of fact the crystal-gazers of the respective editorial boards have on oecasion looked deoper into their balls, have cast sericus doubts on the likelihood of Lebour winning swnother Goneral jlection «nd have prohesied that the welfare schoucs of private industry and those of "non-idcologal" Tory Governments since 1951 have cut away the classical base of social denccracy in Britain.
It is to be hoped that recent ructions in Wall Strest and the City, the nd of the "pay pause" (enforced less through strusgle thon throuzh the sufficient threat of struzgle), snd the current crop of by-elections (illustrating the continuing solidity of the workin, class Labour vote and its refusal to be decoyed by the Liberal image ) have pla.ed some of tiese resy predictions in their proper proportion. The ruling class makes concessions neither out of generosity nor from astuteness, but only under presiure from the working class oranised politically as well as industrially (as our American brothers, still without "socialised" med— icine or any other state welfare benofits worth specking of, have still to learn) 30 far from such concessions heraldiny the end of social denccracy, they ucke its eloctvral success more assured at the moment when it becomes necessary for the ruling class to call (or attempt to call, as poor ‘jelwyn would say) 2 halt to such soncessions. What will finally prosa:re the end of social demcracy will be the nonent wien ths capitalist class (whether served by a Tory or a Labour Governnent, eaches the point where no more refcrns are possible without challongin; the cont~ inued existence of capitalism, thus impelling the workers reluctantly on the road to covolution, Until then, social democracy will be with us, however much we Lay wish it away.
This holds true, of course, of Vourade l'acIntyre's other predictions the iericanization of the political scone. uch as Gaitskell would prefer to lead a sennedy type Democratic Party, he will not ost his way -=— and if he pushes his luck too far, the worse for him (those loyal collea_ues, Brown and Wilson, wait in the win,s for ths dey when Hugh Jets too "ideolovical"). Have the lessons of the fight on clause four, and especially the poworful warning «speech of the impeccably right win.; Ray Gunter, been unlearned so quickly? Wot by Gaitskell, even if by :lasdair. On the contrary, it is far mors likely that we shall witness (perhaps after the noxt ninor 7211 Street dislocation?) an -nylicization of the .merican political scone, with the formation of a quasi-ref rmist 2.rerican Lxbour Party on the pattern of the New Democratic Party in Ganada. This classic proynosis — indeed, canpaip= nin, slogan -—- of the American llarxists now appears nore probable of fruition than over before.
/‘hithor.....0or withsr/continuod
"The charactsr of British industry and with it th: charact:r of the British working class has changed.""| Any marxist would pve a stupia Treilow ir ne denied that vast technolozical developments (inducing even certain changes in capital formation, ¢e.3., the decline in power of the banks) have indeed taken place, and with them changes within the specific weight within the industrial struc ture of technicians, skilled workers and labourors, But what intorosts Ilarxists is the ownership of industry; what interests them is the relationship in which the various layers of the working class stand, to cach other on the one hand and to the owmers of industry on the other, It is common knowledge [ Adios it is a matter of some embarrassment to the Tories, as the ‘irroll propossls on shareholders! voting rights indicate) that not greater diffusion, but ever-—incr— easing concentration is the universal trond where the owmership of the celebrated "“conmanding heights" is concerned. As for the "new", tochnician members of the working class (for that, of course, is what they ane, they show signs, as befits a fresh layer moving into action for the first time, if anything of greater radicalisu, for the time being, than the more ostablished layers (contrast the leaderships of the draughtsmen and the supervisory staffs with, for example, those of the railwsymen and miners). If the leaderships of recent industrial struggles have been "uncommitted" (as is only very partially true -- most have been led by Communists, which does not of course mean that the workers concerned are "committed" Khruschovites) that is because, alas, liarxists are not yet sufficiently active or sufficiently established in industry to Give leadership to these actions.
Vie come now to the business end of MacIntyre. We are led, quite lovsically, to be sure, if we accept his promises, to the truly astonishing proposal for a united front with.....Tony Crosland! For if, indeed, the prospect were one of the steady undercutting of social-doemocracy and an "Americanization" of the political scene, then this would imply the reduction of every socialist organis~ ation to the status of a sect. The Labour Party, shorn of its trade-union base, would probably be willing even to campaign for "really punishing redistributive taxation" ond an end to "a lot of educational privileges." It is impossible to resist, however, the temptation to borrow Comrade liacIntyre's crystal and to prophesy that, in such 2 situation, Mir. Crosland would not be around to do any of he campaigning}
I shall briefly state another prospect -- one which, I havo put in the pages of this paper as consistently, if not so persistently (then shame on ne) as ilasdair has put forward his (the writer refers to the Socialist Review here: ‘2 note) The Labour Party will remain, on present showing; for some years to come the vshicle which reflects the existing level of the working class, or,anisod politically within its ranks to fight a captialism which will Grow, not more lib eral, but even meaner and more viciously murderous, in its decline. But this Labour Party is itself the arena of a sector of the class struj.le: wherein the Rivht-wing leaders, as direct a,ents of the capitalist class, will be confronted by the solid working-class base of the Party which will, at first to be sure under confused and centrist leadership, seck to challenge their hostility to socialisn and betrayal of its principles. A split in such a Party is both inevit=sble and desirable, The task of the Left is to fight to isolate the fx wight, thus placing upon it the onus of split and the sacrifice of casualties, preparing at the Same time the cadre, steeled in struggle, which will construct the mass revolut~ ionary party of the future.
J.F. (London)