* * *¶
Core Argument¶
This letter, written by a leading Trotskyist to the Executive and Central Committees of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) in July 1945, is a sharply critical assessment of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) in Britain. Its core argument is that the RCP’s leadership, drawn from the former Workers International League (WIL), has become a dangerous obstacle to the party’s development. The author concedes that the war years saw genuine progress, unifying “shapeless circles” into a promising organisation, but insists that the leadership’s self-satisfaction and poor conception of internationalism now threaten this achievement.
The letter’s central polemic is directed against the RCP’s Political Bureau (PB), which it accuses of treating the Central Committee as a mere “figurehead,” meeting only quarterly and receiving no minutes. The party newspaper is produced by a “very restricted circle,” and the PB has maintained a suspicious unanimity for eighteen months, despite serious political problems. The author argues that this stifles new militants and prevents them from thinking for themselves. A concrete example is given: the “nons first” question, where a leading comrade proposed that during sackings, non-unionists should be dismissed first. The author condemns this as a line as “dividing and dangerous” as that of the trade union leadership, noting that over 40% of workers are non-unionists. The RCP leadership, rather than correcting this error, attacked those who opposed it.
The letter’s most significant strategic argument concerns the RCP’s relationship with the Labour Party (LP). The leadership’s resolution for the upcoming congress orients the party towards independent activity, but the author is emphatic: “there is no doubt that entry will have to be carried out.” The leadership’s position is seen as pandering to the enthusiasm of new comrades who have only a vague idea of what “entry” means. The author warns that entry into the LP will be far more difficult than previous entries by other sections, and that a lengthy debate is essential. The leadership’s resolution does contain a paragraph allowing for entry if the party stagnates, but the author insists the party must be prepared in advance, with positions secured inside the LP. The letter also notes that Gerry Healy has written a good document on this question, and suggests the ES (European Secretariat of the Fourth International) should ask the RCP conference to reinforce its LP fraction for a period of “reconnaissance activity” before a mature decision is taken.
The author explicitly rejects any policy of simply replacing one leadership team with another, such as “Haston by Healy.” Instead, the role of the International Secretariat and European Secretariat should be to incite political discussion, prevent ossification, and stimulate new elements to express themselves. The letter draws on the experience of earlier entryist tactics in other countries, implicitly contrasting the RCP’s situation with the more successful entries of the French or American sections. It concludes by noting that debates on the “nons first” question and the ILP have already alerted some comrades, and that this path—encouraging internal debate rather than factional struggle—will be more efficient in the long run.