The smear in Charles Van Gelderen's comment on the North Hull Election represents a markedly different attitude from that of The Week and of Humberside Voice, You express your hopes for cn-operation between Radical Alliance and other sections of the left, and Voice has acknowledged that we have introduced a new dimension of socialist strategy at this critical time. Van Gelderen's assertion that the impatience of R.A. may lead us to follow Oswald Moseley's path can hardly contribute to the dialogue about strategy that the left so needs at this time. Furthermore, if he has paid attention to the platform of R.A. (I enclose a copy of one of our brochures*) he will see that our concern is with weapons of mass destruction, poverty and racialism. Hardly a satisfactory start for a neo fascist. party, is it Cmde. Van Gelderen? He would do well to remember that to use such arguments can lead to a situation where phrases such as 'imperialist lackey! and !Monarcho fascist jackal! begins to fly and that their currency belongs to a time nearer in history than does his parallel, Additionally, if one is expected to take up positions in relation to ‘fascist! politics then the Labour Party's Immigration Bill and its support for a bloody war in the Far East give it more than a head start over the ReAe
Of course, we realise that overseas and home policies are connected but if socialism is about priorities, then,on any reckoning, the war in Vietnam and the possible invasion of Neutral Cambodia and Laos this week must at least take temporal priority cver the nationalisation of steel, All political struggle is based on decisions of this nature and if the left were to insist that the same weight of struggle were to be given at the same time to, say, abortion law reform, as to Wilson's possible support for the bombing of China, then we should indeed be campaigning on a fool's paradise. It is for this reason that R.A. is not operating as a new political party but as a specific electoral pressure group on the most important current issues. For Van Geideren to complain that this is inadequate is merely to indulge in a discredited game of Aunt Sally.
There are a number of patronising argument in Van Gelderen's articlesome of which are becoming monotonously repetitive. (Surely David Boulton should have copyrirhted the adjective 'derisory! - his royalties’ would have been enormous!) I would particularly take issue with his last comment that 'the working class of Hull will surely be true to themselves and vote solidly labour.' To pose the argument. in these terms is merely to reproduce Lenin-~ ist confusions about 'class! and ‘party! that have bedevilled Eritish politics of the left for too long. To see the issue in these terms is to remove morality from the scene and to deny the role of socialist ideas in the strugrle., R.A.ts intervention has introduced a new dimension into the dialogue and one can respect the position of comrades like Tony Topham and John Saville, who have made their decisions against R.A. while, as Tony Topham wrote recently, listening with respect to our election campaign as socialists and humanists. It is in these terms that the azrwiments need to be conducted - not by the stale mechanical slogans of the forties and early 50s that divorce socialism from humanism, *Brochure obtainable from: David Laing, Secretary, Radical Alliance,
55, Finlay Street, Fulham, S.W.6.