Disaffiliation from Labour, "

The scan: The Week v7 no11.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the issue's contents list (match 0.72).

DISAFFILIATIONS FROM THE LABOUR PARTY by Ken Tarbuck Raymond Challinor is undoubtedly correct when he points out that both the pottery and the textile unions have consistently supported rightwing policies in the Labour Party. However, I'm afraid it is he and not Pat Jordan who misses the point in this matter. Whilst it may be true that Harold Wilson is losing "a staunch friend", and this is perhaps some cause for rejoicing, the really important point is that the left has not gained a friend in this episode. As socialists we are not concerned merely that sections of the labour movement oppose the present policies of the Government, but that they are opposed in a positive way, i.e. with a socialist alternative. This is the heart of the matter, just so long as the present disaffiliations are done on the basis of a retreat from politics then they are a retrograde step. No matter how much we may sympathise with the feeling of revulsion that gives rise to such actions, we should not therefore hasten to applaud actions that can lead to the a-politisation of working-class struggles. At the moment there is no place for the pottery and textile unions to carry on a policical fight of a socialist character except in the Labour Party. To advise them otherwise is to ultimately help confirm the trend towards business-unionism. This is not what is needed in the present situation, what is needed is more political commitment and activity. Those who applaud or advise such actions as disaffiliation, without at the same time providing a real and viable alternative, .10t an imaginary one, are objectively playing a reactionary role. It may give one a feeling of satisfaction to indulge in 'emotional spasms', but in the long-run it doesn't do the fight for socialism any good at all. It would have been far better if these two unions had decided to engage in political activity by declaring that they would no longer be "Harold's staunch friends" at this years Labour Party conference. That would have been a move in the right direction.

[