MARXISM AND LABOUR - A COMMENT
I am writing to you in order to comment on the second part of Pat Jordan's article on Marxists and the Labour Party. The basic precepts from which he argues are sound but I think that his conclusions are wrong.
Obviously it is the duty of a marxist to fight for the victory of the proletariat in the final class struggle. How can they do this from inside a reformist party, which has recently passed anti-working class legislation, dictated to them by such pillars of capitalism as Wall St. and the gnomes of Zurich?
I agree there is a sizeable minority of Labour MPs who want proper socialism, especially the TRIBUNE group. The present parliamentary system dictates to them that they should become ineffective and hypocritical by subordinating themselves to the party whips. It is also this parliamentary system which forces marxists to contemplate joining this anti-working class party.
The prospect of a strong Powellite Government comes about because Labour has deserted its socialist principles. Even a marxist stands little chance of getting into Parliament on the Labour ticket because anyone in that party has to bear the brunt of Labour's mistakes.
The coalition of the left needs careful consideration as to whether to be reformist or revolutionary, [illegible] of the proletariat" must be its target. Personally I think no marxist can do this with the present constitution and that the best way would be a revolution, such as in France, of militants [illegible]
AN INTERNATIONAL BRIGADE FOR VIETNAM
One can sympathise with but not support comrade Hall's letter in issue number 2 of INTERNATIONAL. The article reproduced from LA GAUCHE on the [illegible] in essence doing not so much more than making the [illegible] on the international plane as a genuine revolutionary [illegible] class collaborationist policy - to be able to claim to be following the marxist road. It is obvious that once they drop this posture that it will be very difficult for them to continue to influence communist parties and the national Liberation movements.
The idea of an international brigade for Vietnam is attractive but has a number of drawbacks. The first being the simple fact that the Vietnamese haven't called for one. Secondly, Europeans, as the Americans would no doubt testify, would not be very suitable for the terrain and climate. In conclusion one has to note that this would not by any means meet the point of comrade Hall's argument. Surely, the brigade would have to be armed and who would arm it? If one argues that the Americans will attack the Soviet Union if it gave massive help to the Vietnamese, one must concede that the Americans would attack the Soviet Union if they faced defeat from a Russian-armed international brigade.
The argument gets back to this: what is the best way of fighting imperialism? By coming to agreement with it, by damping down the struggle in exchange for promises? Or by fighting resolutely and trying to defeat imperialism and its agents in every country of the world?
Experience indicates that if one backs down in face of imperialism it becomes more aggressive and demanding. On the other hand if one stands up to it, imperialism can be made to back down. If comrade Hall was right the Koreans would have been quite wrong to have seized the Pueblo spy ship. I think it can be demonstrated that the incident demonstrated the exact opposite.
The final guarantee against war and an attack on the Soviet Union is the overthrow of imperialism and a world-wide system of workers' states. Anything which hinders that objective makes war more likely. The best way to struggle for peace is by struggling for the destruction of capitalism.
DAVE WINDSOR