The last year has brought a great deal of growth on the left at the London School of Economics, yet, if anything, the present situation is very depressing. In March 1968 there were very few militants at the L.S.E. who were in favour of an emphasis upon radical activity at the College with a view towards building of a Students Revolt. By October, there were very few who did not want to do precisely that. The period March - October 1968 is very important in any analysis of the situation at the L.S.E. to-day; for within that period there emerged not only the Revolutionary Socialist Students Federation, but also contradictions which have contributed to the present debacle at the L.S.E.
In February 1968 a group of 13 students from and around the L.S.E. went to Berlin to attend the Vietnam Congress and the demonstration that followed it. Student militancy in Germany had attracted the attention of some militants at the L.S.E. but hardly any ideological approval. Some felt developments in the S.D.S. to be adventuristic and totally isolated from the sort of activity which groups like the International Socialism group advocated in order to forge links and struggle with the working class. Indeed this separated these comrades from purely student "activists" in the Radical Students Alliance who were concerned with gaining power within the structure of the National Union of Students in order to further the causes of student representation and political debate. The trip to Berlin, it is important to remember, was organised by the N.L.R. Society more than by the Socialist Society at LSE.
The group that went to Berlin went with many reservations about the S.D.S. but upon its return some within it were impressed with the necessity of working with students. The wide gap which existed with these and the hard core of the Socialist Society was clearly evident when a group from the S.D.S. in Berlin attended the March 17th Demonstration in London. Very few common perspectives existed between the S.D.S. comrades and the I.S. group at the L.S.E. Both were to adapt their positions in the following months although many in both claim that only the environment altered.
The May events in Paris were to provide the catalyst. The agitation following the attempted assassination of Rudi Dutschke had already emphasised the feeling of isolation of the student vanguard in relation to the working class in Germany. In Paris it became obvious that students could act as a detonator, but also the vital importance of the link with the working class. In London it reinforced the hands of those comrades in the Socialist Society in general and within I.S. in particular, who wanted to work more actively with students. There followed a rejection of the arguments being advanced by a minority group who still questioned the role of students. Out of this debate emerged the Revolutionary Socialist Students Federation. But the reservations of the minority group were to induce a hesitancy in the majority which constituted the vanguard. True, all militants had been prepared to take up issues like the appointment of Doctor Walter Adams, to radicalise within Universities, but there was now a vital emphasis at stake.
From October 1968 the Socialist Society grew rapidly in size and this included a large number of new students. The L.S.E. also now has a substantial number of students who identify with some of the aspirations of the Socialist Society. It was they who stood firm at the Meeting at Friends House during the closure of the L.S.E. — and they who voted in a Socialist Society majority on the Union Council. But there was a sad lacking of any political education within the increased base. True I.S. was now joined by other tentative formations in competition for the allegiance of militants, but none of the other tendencies was formalised or strong enough to provide an alternative leadership. More recently there have been one or two tentative nuclei emerging, the two major ones being Robin Blackburn's Red Bases theory, and the Ultra-Left Group. But, in a way, events were to overtake and undercut these developments.
The administration collided with the militants at first and then deliberately set about an attack on the Left at the L.S.E. When the crunch came, the militants had failed to politically educate the L.S.E. students sufficiently to withstand such an attack, and found themselves a large but isolated and frustrated minority. Those who advocated action even if taken by the University alone, and those who advocated the building of Red Bases now looked entirely unrealistic.
The examinations loom ahead, and although some of the militant minority would like to question and act against them, the students as a whole do not feel convinced enough to jeopardise their tickets on the gravy train. Even militants, in the past, have often hibernated for weeks or months in order to ensure a good degree. Can we blame the majority, who have only identified with the left on an emotional basis without adequate attempts to reinforce this with analysis, for deserting us now in face of the chopper? We have provided no alternative, perhaps because we have not thought enough in concrete terms, and we find ourselves unsure whether we have one.
With the Ford strike and agitation against Government legislation against workers rights, many comrades have now started to question activity in the universities and many of the criticisms which had been advanced by the minority group are being advanced again. However, a return to February 1968 is impossible. The lessons of May cannot be swept aside.
"The great tragedy is that even out of the comrades who have been active within the Socialist Society, many have not got the sort of analysis which they need to survive as militants when they leave the L.S.E. The general desire for an ideological battle at L.S.E. does tend to try to undo many of these omissions. Also, many recruits for the Ford picket line, the Squatters, the Poster Workshop, and political groups have been made. However, the gains made compare unfavourably with the possibilities available. These are likely to grow even more rapidly next year.
When two comrades from the S.D.S. came to this country a few weeks ago, they found a great deal of common perspective with militants here. No longer is the attitude to get up on a platform and announce the country you came from, the lessons you have learnt which you think the audience should consider. We all have a more open and internationalist attitude, and look for lessons which can be learnt from the experience in Paris, London, Prague and Berlin.