* * *¶
Core Argument¶
This letter, written by a leading figure in the Fourth International to the European Secretariat and Central Committee, is a strategic intervention on the state of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) in Britain in the immediate post-war period. The core argument is that while the formation of the RCP represents a tremendous gain—the foundation of a real party where previously only circles existed—its leadership, drawn from the former Workers’ International League (WIL), is the organisation’s weakest point and is actively stifling its political development. The author is not interested in a sweeping indictment of the party’s low political level, which he sees as a product of the English working-class movement, but rather in diagnosing the leadership’s failure to stimulate political life.
The letter makes several key claims, supported by concrete examples. The leadership, intoxicated by small successes, is self-sufficient, refusing to learn from any source and unwilling to collaborate with dissent. This manifests organisationally in a hollow structure: the Political Bureau (PB) is the real leadership, while the Central Committee (CC) is a figurehead meeting infrequently, with no PB minutes circulated to allow oversight. The party paper is the work of a limited circle. The political consequences are illustrated by the ‘nons first’ dispute. When faced with post-war redundancy, the comrade responsible for industrial work, after a correct general analysis, proposed that non-unionists (nons) be sacked first. The author argues this is a false position, as nons constitute over 40 per cent of the working class, and the leadership obstinately persisted, covering for trade union opportunists and attacking opposition comrades.
The central political question for the coming Congress is the orientation towards the Labour Party (LP). The author polemicises sharply against the PB’s document, which he sees as a veiled attack on the European Secretariat’s positions. The document turns the party towards independent activity, appealing to enthusiasm rather than critical spirit. The author insists that entry into the LP cannot be treated as a mere emergency plank for rough going; it is a difficult tactic imposed by the situation, and the party must be prepared for it. He cites a document by G. Healy as a good alternative. The letter concludes by rejecting a policy of simply replacing one leadership clique with another. Instead, the role of the International Secretariat (IS) and European Secretariat (ES) should be to stimulate political discussion that will expose the PB’s pretensions and assist the development of new elements, particularly youth untainted by old factional cliques. The historical context is the immediate post-war period, with the transition from war to peace production creating unemployment and the question of how revolutionaries should relate to the mass reformist Labour Party.