by TARIQ ALI
(From Socialist Review, No. 38, 14 December 1981–13 December 1981: 10, pp. 20–21.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.)
For a long time Tariq Ali was probably Britain’s best known revolutionary. Now he has decided to leave the International Marxist Group and apply for membership of the Labour Party. Here he argues with us that his decision is a correct one – and Pete Goodwin and Chris Harman reply, restating our case for building an independent, revolutionary
‘Neither to laugh nor to cry, but to understand’ (Spinoza)
In a letter to The Guardian (23 November 1981) Chris Harman suggests that by joining the Labour Party I am abandoning Marxism and repudiating the core of my remarks made during the ‘debate of the decade.’ If this were true then, of course, there would be no point in argument. I could be easily denounced as another in the long line of revisionists, social-traitors, renegades, etc., and that would be that. But Chris Harman is fully aware that matters are not so simple.
When I first came to Britain in the mid-sixties one of the first left papers that I found being thrust down my neck was Labour Worker (if I recall correctly the seller was Ian Birchall) which was littered with articles bearing the signature X or Y or Z with the Constituency Labour Party they belonged to mentioned in brackets.
True that was a long time ago and we have seen many changes since that time. One of these is that the far left is stronger than it was. But are we qualitatively in a different league?
I think not. Even if all the far-left groups were united they would still not be as strong (especially in terms of a proletarian cadre) as was the Communist Party of the twenties.
The point I am trying to make is the following: we are confronted with a crucial strategic choice today and if the wrong decision is made (as it was at the recent SWP conference) then there is a real danger of isolation, reinforcement of a ghetto mentality and objective pressures in the direction of becoming a sect.
I have always been in favour of a strong collaboration with the SWP and its predecessor and my attitude has not changed because I have left the IMG. It remains the same.
The debate between us revolves round analysing the important developments taking place in British politics.
Socialist Review as well as other journals on the left (including the Labour left) tended to dismiss the formation of the SDP as an irrelevance. In Gang show on the road?, you refused to accept the challenge being posed to the traditional bureaucratic leadership of the Labour Party. You wrote:
The apparently impressive showing for the centre party in opinion polls is almost certainly not going to be translated into any electoral success. Just ask the simple question: can Jenkins or Williams stand anywhere against sitting Labour MPs and win seats? The answer must be ten-to-one against success for them.
The string of SDP successes in local elections in Labour strongholds is an ominous pointer in another direction. You subsequently corrected your misestimate and the last issue of SR accurately described the class character of the SDP. It should have made an additional point, namely, that the SDP electorate has a multi-class character. Unfortunately it has received tens of thousands of working class votes. In reality what is taking place is the emergence of a purely bourgeois alternative to the Tories.
It is the defection of a representative layer of the Labour right to form the SDP that confronts the labour movement with its most severe crisis since the thirties. The traditional leadership is assailed from the right by the SDP and their supporters in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and from the left by a rank-and-file led by Tony Benn.
This crisis won’t blow over quickly. It has deep roots in British capitalism’s paralytic disorders and the prolonged experience of the Wilson-Callaghan Labour governments. What is really taking place is that the entire tradition of Labourism is being called into question on the left as well as the right.
Marxists for more