Disagreeing with Bryn

Labour Briefing no. 104, 6 June 1990, p. 2

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

By-line as printed: Phil Hearse, Camden.

Dear Briefing,

In Briefing no. 103, Bryn Griffiths wrote an article explaining why socialists should support Labour Party Socialists.

Indeed, the Labour Party Socialists conference was highly successful; an important step towards organising the left against Kinnockism and New Realism, fully justifying the support which Briefing has given to the Socialist Movement, of which LPS is a part.

However, Bryn used some arguments about the relationship between organised Marxist groups and the Labour left with which I do not agree.

Given the prominence of Bryn's article and the fact that he is a member of the Editorial Board, readers could get the impression that Bryn's views are not controversial among Briefing supporters.

This is far from being the case.

The disagreements centre on Bryn's account of the National Left Wing Movement in the Labour Party in the 1920s, and the role of the Communist Party in it; and his account of the IMG, the SWP, and the "Bennite" left

Bryn says that the CP was able to build the NLWM because of the CP's struggle to affiliate to the Labour Party. This seems a strange way to pose the question.

By 1925 Communist Party members were excluded from the Labour Party; except for a few secret CP members, the CP was wholly outside the Labour Party.

But because of its united front orientation, and – crucially – because of its influence in the labour movement through the Minority Movement in the trade unions, the CP was able to play a key role in building the NLWM.

Sectarian

This invaluable work was destroyed by the CP's 1928-29 sectarian and ultra-left turn (the "third period").

But until then the CP understood the vital importance of building a class struggle opposition in the Labour Party – as part of an overall struggle to build a militant socialist left in the labour movement.

But its experience of doing this from outside the Labour Party shows there is no mechanical, once-and-for-all method of doing this.

What it did show was the absolutely irreplaceable role of organised Marxism in such developments and the centrality of the fight in the trade unions for establishing the overall relationship of forces in the labour movement.

Bryn says the IMG did good work building the Vietnam movement and the SWP the Anti-Nazi League, but both were "eclipsed" by the rise of the bennite left.

The reality is much more complex than this dismissive phrase suggests.

There is much vital work in the labour movement which has its origins in the work and traditions of the IMG and SWP in the 60s and 70s.

Examples include the Socialist Teachers Alliance, militant anti- racism, work on women's liberation, and international solidarity. Other examples closer to home could be given.

Of necessity Bryn's article was very abbreviated. But it would be very unfortunate if Briefing gave the impression that the sole, or even the main, work building a militant socialist current should always be slogging away in the wards and GCs.

Of course socialists should not abandon the Labour Party, but neither should they be mesmerised by its internal structures and rhythms.

Neither historical experience nor contemporary reality give an y support to reducing the work of socialists to an internal Labour Party fight.

The success of the Socialist Movement lies precisely in its ability to combine work inside and outside the Labour Party, and its correct understanding of the necessity to force an alliance of socialists prioritising these different types of work.

Comradely greetings,

Phil Hearse,

Camden

transcribed from the page image, 2 Nov 2026; spelling and spacing as printed ('give an y support'; 'anti- racism' with a space; 'bennite' lower case beside '"Bennite"'; no full stop after '"Bennite" left'). A letter, signed at the end 'Comradely greetings, Phil Hearse, Camden', on the Letters page (page 2); complete there. The crosshead 'Sectarian' is the paper's. Left out: the other letters on the page, the Writeback box, the photo of Eric Heffer, the notice about Jane Kelly set across the foot of the letter, and the imprint box.