How wide is SL net?

Scan page 11

D. BIGGS in SO 126 says that the Socialist League for many years has been in favour of a united organisation with the Workers Socialist League. He argues that the differences are only of a tactical nature, can be contained within the same group, and that anyway a united grouping would encourage left independents to join. Haven't we heard this somewhere before?

In 1978/9 the IMG made the same offer to the SWP (UK). An organisation, by the way, that says that every single socialist revolution since 1917 has simply created a new form of capitalism, and that sees the Labour Party as just another capitalist organisation. The IMG said these differences were "only tactical" . Do they still maintain this view?

If so, then surely they should also be calling for a united organisation with the Militant Tendency - a group which formally espouses the same programmatic W1 documents as does the IMG's parent, the USFI. After all, I'm sure that Militant's conception of a left Labour Government passing an Enabling Act to initiate socialism can be. inserted within the IMG's notion of "the dynamics of the objective process propelling the movement in a socialist direction"

In reality the Socialist League's conception of a united revolutionary organisation is so broad and amorphous as to include almost anybody and everybody to the left of the Communist Party. Even more, there is substantial evidence from the USFT's past and present practice 'that shows that they see many communist parties around the world as being "revolutionary"

For them, both the parties of Pham Van Dong and Castro are revolutionary parties. Indeed, the Socialist League have taken this policy further in their recent offer to both "Marxism Today" and "New Socialist" for joint publications with their own organ, "International"

Furthermore, in an article in Socialist Challenge in 1979 Tariq Ali, then editor, bemoaned the potential collapse of the Morning Star,. "as a great blow to the movement" • Surely, the Socialist League should, be making an orientation to the CP as well? If not, why not? The argument against could not be the 'sectarian' notion that the CP was not revolutionary, could it?

And of course, let us not forget our old friends, the WRP. In a purely formal sense, they are an orthodox Trotskyist. current. Do they not stand by the gains of the October revolution, the first four Congresses of the Comintern etc. Of course they might possess a few sectarian deviations - but didn't Lenin say that sectarianism was a lesser evil than opportunism?

No, comrade Biggs, there is no substantive reason why your own brief for a united organisation cannot be applied to these "conscious" , "semi-conscious" "unconscious" Trotskyists.

In their bizarre view of working class parties around the world, many of these parties whether they know it or not seem to agree with Socialist Action. Can comrades really imagine a Central Committee meeting at which Gerry Healy, Castro, Ted Grant, Colonel Quadaffi, Tony Cliff, Alan. Thornett and Bob Pennington all agreed on a united policy on the Labour Party? • I suggest that a preliminary meeting of these dignataries be called forthwith.

Yours fraternally, BARRY QUICKSILVER

----- pull-quotes -----

For an indepen- dent inquiry into the death of Coli Roach!