Perspectives, plan and the ILP¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter mounts a sustained polemic against an unnamed American critic—likely a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)—who accused the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of lacking a coherent perspective and plan for work inside the Independent Labour Party (ILP). The RCP’s defence rests on a detailed rebuttal of the critic’s factual claims and a counterposing of its own strategic orientation.
The core argument is that the critic, Stuart, divorces the ILP from the broader political situation, particularly the ILP’s relationship to the Labour Party. The RCP’s perspective, adopted at a conference resolution, predicted that the ILP would seek affiliation to the Labour Party once the latter broke the wartime coalition. This would make the ILP the main left-wing organisational base inside the Labour Party, rendering the entrist “socialist left” groups redundant. The RCP’s task, therefore, was not to split the ILP prematurely but to prepare for entry into the Labour Party through an affiliated ILP.
Key claims are advanced against Stuart’s distortions. The RCP denies that a significant indigenous left wing exists inside the ILP, insisting that the so-called “native left wing” are left reformists far from Fourth International positions, not ex-Trotskyists. The Wicks-Dewar faction is dismissed as a tiny London-based group, now dissolved, with no influence. The RCP asserts that the ILP leadership actually won a decisive victory on the affiliation question at the 1944 Easter conference, not the reverse. The resolution on Common Wealth, moved by Trotskyists in close relation with the RCP, is cited as evidence of planned work.
The chapter draws on the historical evolution of the ILP: a leftward shift from 1931 to 1934 followed by a steady rightward progression, accelerated in the previous three years. This trajectory rules out any immediate perspective of fusion with the ILP, whether as a principled turn or a tactical manoeuvre. Fusion would exaggerate the ILP’s revolutionary potential, run counter to its present evolution, and confuse sympathisers nationally. The RCP’s perspective is instead one of “patient accumulation” in the ILP, not “get rich quick.”
The polemic is sharp. Stuart is accused of light-minded irresponsibility for issuing a “directive” on a secondary question without familiarising himself with the party’s work, balance of forces, or the all-important issue of affiliation to the Labour Party—which he fails even to mention. The withdrawal of comrade Tearse is defended as necessary for industrial work, not evidence of haphazard policy. The RCP contrasts its own long-term perspective—based on a prognosis unchanged since 1938—with Stuart’s apparent attraction to a sectarian split perspective that would isolate revolutionaries just as the ILP entered the Labour Party. The chapter concludes by anticipating that SWP comrades may soon propose fusion as a campaign, a perspective the RCP has already rejected after months of political bureau discussion.