In the January issue of Marxism Today Arnold Kettle has written "An Open Letter to a non-Communistleft-winger", this needs some commenting on in view of the current discussion aroused by the Hull North by-election. Some of the points raised by Arnold Kettle are very pertinent to the present state of the left, and for its future, However, there are so many points raised that it will be difficult to deal with them all. Instead I shall try to deal with the most important ones. The first point is on the question of the third Labour Government (1945-51). "Each of the Labour Governments has had its excuse, The first two were minority governments, The third with its huge majority, was faced with the difficult post-war situation, And it is clear that every Labour Government will in fact be faced with some sort of inherent difficulty. Does this mean that the more radical solutions are to be ruled out for ever?" Now this raises a very important point, but not the one that Arnold Kettle thinks it does. The implication here is that the third Labour Government was a failure. Is this so? From the point of view that there was no transition to socialism, yes! But, and here is the crux of the matter, was it failure when measured against its own declared policy? The answer must be a. decisive no! This is not a mere question of historical analysis, this question is very important for the left today. let me emphasise, the third Labour Government, apart from steel, was very success=~ ful in carrying out its own programme, Britain was put on the road of capitalist recovery. I don't want to analyse this apparent paradox here, but the point I want to make is that - the very success provoked a serious crisis within the non-Labour left, even within the Labour left. The reason for this was that many previous assumptions had been knocked on the head, There emerged two distinct, yet tending to merge, strands» Firstly, those who argued the Crosland thesis, and secondly, those ex-marxists who now accepted the parliamentary reformist road to Socialism. Along with this, and as part of it, there emerged the new programme of the British Communist Party, The British Road to Socialism, which I suggest was also a product of this crisis of the left. The left was faced with a social democratic government that did carry out its programme. The way the programme was carried out was, and still can be, disputed, but there on the Statute books were the Acts of Parliament, There before our eyes was the British Railways Board, the National Coal Board, The Coal Board taking over without any fuss, apart from some stirring scenes of flag= raising at the pitheads, This has to be viewed against the pre-war § , background of bitter struggles and near civil war in the twenties. in the coal fields, If all this seems rather exaggerated, it is because I want to stress the point. I would suggest that in some ways the left (or part of it) has still not recovered completely from this crisis.
I make the above point to bring the discussion down to realities. And the reality in this: the third Labour Government failed not because the right wing betrayed, but because it was successful within its own terms of reference. Unless the left understands this, and along with them Arnold Kettle, they will never understand the nature of the struggle. The next questions worth discussing ares Se foe
An Appeal for Unity from Arnold Kettle, cont'd "Two Basic Points...e(1) that it is not irrelevant in the mid-twentieth century, in the conditions obtaining in Western Europe, to talk seriously about fundamental social changes and (2) that one of the most important problems holding back the advance of the left in Western Europe and America is anti-communisme" With the first point there can be little disagreement, but what of the second? Before going on to discuss this, let's hook at another point which has a bearing on ite Writing about the communists, Arnold Kettle says: "We may(and most of us do) regret this or th®t aspect of, say, the Chinese or Soviet policy, or deplore this or that by-product of the socialist revolution in this or that part of the world." Let us now examine point two and the previous quotation. First let us make it quite clear that the anti-communism of the C.I.A. and the alleged anticommunism of some of the left are two very distinct things. Those of us who oppose the C.P.G.B. have nothing in common with Mr. Heath or President Johnson. Both Heath and Johnson proceed from a fundamental class position irreconcilable with socialism and national liberation, because they defend bourgeois interests. Those of us on the left who oppose the C.P.G.B. do so from a different class position from Heath or Johnson. This is why our opposition is not the same. Despite all its faults, which we should discuss, we see the C.P.G.B. as being a part of the working-class moyement, and as such should be defended against attack by our mutual enemy. Therefore when Arnold Kettle writes about anti-communism he should tell us very clearly whose anti-communism he means. For many of the Left do not oppose the C.P.G.B,. because it is communism, but because they feel it is note We don't think it helpful to use such euphemisms as "deplore this or that by-product of the socialist revolution". If this is to be a genuine dialogue then let us speak plainly: let us call Stalinism and its accompanying terror by its real.name. Until the members of the C.P.G.B. face up squarely to this question of Stalinism there cannot be any genuine discussion as to the state of the left, for their party today is a"by-product" of that phenomena. Ever since the XX Congress of the C.P.S.U. nearly a decade ago, the C.P.G.B. has failed to face up to this question of Stalinism, and this is why for many of us on the Left there is still a big question mark over the role of the partye Arnold Kettle tells us that we cannot effectively oppose the Right on a whole number of issues-overseas military commitments, Victnam, Rhodesia, etc.- unless we also explain what communist policy ise But we do not ne@d to explain communist party policy, since many of us oppose Loe. Lt on the other hand this means that one should equate all socialist and national liberation struggle with communist policy I would say it was rather presumptious of Arnold Kettle. First of all it suggests that these struggles only take place under communist party leadership, which is certainly not the case. Secondly it suggests that the non=-communist left in this country is without policies of its ow and is incapable of formulating any. Arnold Kettle puts forward a programme for united left action, and with many of the points most left-wingers would agree, but there are a number which raise doubts, For instances: "End Britain!s Support for U.S. policy in Vietnam". Unless this is firmly linked with not merely being against the Wilson policy but also for a victory of the N.L.F. and the withdrawal of U.S. troops, this could lead to support for 'negotiations!. ;
to be continued next week/