There is a great desire for unity on the left today. This feeling arises basically from the contradiction between the needs of the left and its fragmented state. Everyone on the left recognises the need for a massive response to the attack by the Labour Government on the working class - on the other hand, all are aware that no single existing organisation is capable of organising that response. Indeed, the traditional organisations of the left, ranging from TRIBUNE to the Socialist Labour League, have all been discredited by their complete failure to respond to the challenge of the Wilson Government.
There is also an element of urgency in the situation: everything indicates that in not so long a time we will be confronted by a Tory Government, armed with Labour's legislation against the trade unions; and feeling confident because of the lack of any political challenge.
The feeling for unity has expressed itself in many ways: the adoption of a new technique (the all-inclusive ad hoc committee, pioneered by the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign); the creation of unifying organisations; [illegible] different tendencies to work together (the VSC itself, the workers control campaign, RSSP, etc.); and, in a distorted way, the International Socialist unity offensive of last year.
Now we are to have a conference which will examine these experiences, attempt to generalise from them and chart the way for new initiatives to develop the process. The National Convention of the left which is being held in London over the week end [illegible].
First let me put the point of view of the International Marxist Group on united action committees (I have written extensively on this theme in the November, 1968, issue of INTERNATIONAL, comrades should read this for a more extensive examination of this question). We start from a profound conviction that the problem of carrying out a social transformation in Britain requires above all the building of a mass revolutionary party, capable of working out a strategy for the overthrow of British capitalism and skilled in the art of leadership of working class struggles.
We regard the present fragmentation of the left as arising from the lack of such a party. Once the process of building the mass revolutionary party proceeds beyond its embryonic stage - that is when a given tendency clearly establishes its hegemony in theory and practice - regroupment will commence. It is difficult to predict in advance exactly what form this will take; but one thing is certain: at this point powerful pressures will generate within all left groups for unification of organization - leaders who seek to stand in the way of that process will be assigned to the political dustbin.
From this point of view loose alliances in such campaigns as the VSC may be seen as temporary expedient arrangements to enable struggles to be carried out in the period before the revolutionary party is built. Such campaigns and organisations are necessary because NO EXISTING ORGANISATION IS CAPABLE OF LEADING THESE NECESSARY STRUGGLES.
For example, the fact that no existing left group was either strong enough or, on the other hand, willing to organise a mass campaign in Britain in support of the Vietnamese revolution made the creation of VSC necessary. Many of the problems of VSC can only be understood when this reality is grasped. Under "ideal" circumstances a Vietnam campaign would be one aspect of the activity of a mass revolutionary organisation. This organisation would make resources and cadres available for this campaign and would give it political stability. But "ideal" circumstances do not exist - and we cannot postpone the struggle until they do.
In essence we can say that the comrades who conceived the National Convention of the left are seeking to do on a general basis what campaigns like VSC have done on particular issues.
First, it needs to be said that such an effort needs to be seen for what it is: a temporary and [illegible] organisation, existing only because as yet revolutionaries have not succeeded, as yet, in laying the basis for a revolutionary party.
Secondly, it must be pointed out that such a project is fraught with dangers. It is one thing to organise a campaign on a single issue such as Vietnam, where for revolutionaries the issues are clear cut, but another thing once one attempts [illegible] which can give rise to political and tactical differences.
And thirdly, great stress must be laid upon the need for theoretical clarity in all we do. The British movement is cursed with a disregard for theory and the need for clear political positions - the disastrous consequences of such attitudes are around for all to see.
Sometimes those who struggle for such clarity are considered sectarian. In fact the truth lies in the opposite direction. Those who make such charges have a mistaken conception of sectarianism.
The most common mistake is to separate the politics of an organisation from its methods and even draw the conclusion that an organisation can have correct politics but sectarian methods. While the politics of an organisation and its mode of operation are not identical and can temporarily be in contradiction this cannot persist for any length of time.
A thorough-going analysis of sectarian organisations' policies will usually reveal that they have a wrong theory of the present political situation and a wrong theory of the relationship between the vanguard and the class.
The SLL, for instance, has held a "catastrophic slump" perspective for the British economy. In their documents they have even referred to five million unemployed and the disappearance of the middle class. This organisation has an idealistic theory of how consciousness of the working class changes: it behaves as though the constant reiteration of the charge of betrayal against all and sundry will enable the working class to lose its social democratic illusions.
Another symptom of sectarianism is the rigid viewing of all questions through the prism of the apparent needs of one's organisation. Campaigns and other struggles are then viewed entirely from the point of view of what results one expects to get in terms of growth of membership, sales of publications, etc., and not from the point of view of furthering the particular fight one is involved in.
A striking example of this kind of approach was revealed in certain organisation's attitudes towards the Vietnam campaign. Sections of International Socialism, for instance, argued that seeing Vietnam was no longer a burning issue, IS should not mobilise for the March 16th demonstration. Of course, the exact opposite is the case - seeing that a combination of the Paris talks and mass media's handling of Vietnam news had lulled sections of the movement IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER for those who took the solidarity position to mobilise in support of the Vietnamese.
In conclusion it must be said that the National Convention of the left can be useful in meeting the problems we have posed. It would be a big mistake, however, if it did not learn from the errors of the past. Elaborate structures are a mistake when one is merely building a transitional organisation. Unifying issues should be the theme of the discussions. No one should seek to make the loose organisational forms which emerge substitutes for the more serious business of building a revolutionary marxist organisation.