It is somewhat grotesque that I should be writing you an open letter as the latter is a device we normally reserve for individuals with whom any other form of contact is difficult. Why is it then that one has to do this? It is because despite the fact that we are both revolutionaries (albeit in different revolutionary socialist organisations) it has been impossible to communicate with each other except through opposing loudspeaker vans on the streets of Stechford. So this open letter is a response to a bizarre situation.
The by-election is now over. There are a number of points in relation to it which I would have made to you personally had we encountered each other in Stechford itself, but which now have to be made through this letter.
In the first place, I think you will probably agree that the results show us once again how Labour's right-wing policies (typified by the Social Contract, the refusal of the "lefts' to make any fight, etc.) have created the basis for Tory victories in previously solid Labour seats. The fascists, too, are gaining more strength, spreading their poison and winning working class votes. It is not at all inconceivable that their aim of replacing the Liberals as the 'third party' in British national politics is now even closer to being realised than ever before, though on an uneven regional basis and not nationally. Nonetheless, it is a significant development to which we have to pay serious attention. We should not rule out the fascists saving a number of deposits in the next General Elections (of course under a system of proportional representation they would do considerably better).
Given this general situation it was totally incomprehensible why there were two revolutionary socialist candidates, both saying similar sorts of things as far as the masses were concerned, and both essentially competing for the same layer of voters. You know perfectly well, Paul, that the IMG, far from 'splitting the anti-racist votes' as your comrade Steve Jefferys claimed in Socialist Worker, has been consistently fighting for a united approach to elections. That is why we supported you in Walsall and Newcastle and that is why we urged joint discussions for a common candidate in Stechford. Our local branch is much stronger than yours, we have a modest working class implantation and we had begun campaigning in the constituency three weeks before your own candidature was announced. We did regard this as sectarian on the part of your organisation as it appeared that the main reason for catapulting yourself to Stechford was to 'defeat the IMG'. Leaving aside the stupidity of such a project in broad political terms, it was also, in my view, an act of gross irresponsibility and a misuse of your prestige, which extends far beyond the world of far-left politics. I have heard of your reluctance to have become involved in this sectarian project, and all I can say is that your own political instincts were nearer the mark than those of your leadership. Our comrades who came to two of your meetings were correct to stress this point to you. Far from our campaign aiming at attacking the SWP, as Jefferys puts it in Socialist Worker, we stressed the need for unity (in the context of developing a broad class struggle opposition to the policies of the Labour Government), and recognised the work which you personally have done for the anti-racist cause.
Secondly, we can both agree that the response of the Labour Party to the racist and fascist candidates put up by the Tories as in Stechford is totally inadequate. It was only in one sentence of Davis' stencilled appeal to Asian voters that he mentioned that Labour would defend immigrants. Needless to say this appeared only in Urdu so that the press wouldn't get hold of it. In effect Labour totally ignored the question of racism. In a situation where it was the central plank of the Tories and the fascists this was a disastrous decision.
Thirdly there was a great deal of apathy and cynicism on the part of large numbers of working class voters which was manifested both in discussions with our canvassers and in the abstentions at the actual poll itself. Curiously enough our canvassers, who spent many days in the white working class areas, reported that they encountered very little hostility (except from hardline fascist supporters). People were anxious to talk and they almost universally expressed great dissatisfaction with Labour's policies. This unease and anger, in itself a reflection of the crisis of the capitalist system, is bound sooner or later to find an explosive reflection within the mass organisations of the working class. It cannot simply bypass them and socialists have to take account of this fact.
On a more fundamental level, we have to see the Stechford result as part of a general revolutionary party depending on whom one is speaking to); every one else is just a sect and therefore irrelevant. From this flows the implacable logic — the best way to fight racism is to join the SWP. Remember how we all used to laugh at Healy's pretensions in the '60s, expressed in fantasy formulas like the best way to help the struggle in Vietnam is to build the revolutionary party - the SLL — and not "middle class" protest bodies such as the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign'? "The best way to fight unemployment is to join the Right to Work marches"?
No-one doubts that you are the largest far left group and an important component of what will be in the coming years a revolutionary party, but that does not transform you into its nucleus. This fact has been reflected in elections within the National Union of Teachers, within the National Union of Students, in the Stechford by-election and no doubt tomorrow in numerous other activities. Is it not time to draw up a balance sheet from these developments? The SWP stands in the same relationship to the masses as the other major left organisations. Is it not time to understand that a united far left pole could in certain fields of activity shift the relationship of forces between us and the reformists? Already in Stechford both our organisations have individually gained more votes than the CP did the last time it stood. How does the CP explain the 'ultra-left' opponents of the parliamentary road getting more votes even in bourgeois elections than itself? The Morning Star is not telling the truth when it says that neither of us canvassed in the white working class areas, but in any case what is to prevent the CP from campaigning in the black areas as well and competing with us? Or is it that Asians and blacks are more responsive to 'ultra-leftism"? The point I am making is that an understanding of the united front is absolutely vital in this period. Don't follow the real sectarians who are only in favour of the 'united front' with the mass organisations and who denounce all political activity outside that framework as wrong. The struggle for the united front starts at home!
A united far left slate, in our view, would be the best possible method of maximising our political impact in the next general election. In certain exceptional cases we should back class struggle candidates who represent a real mass base and its revulsion with Labour's policies. Coalitionism as represented by Lib-Lab agreements (and further developments on the same pattern cannot be excluded) would be a further aid. In certain areas candidates belonging to other political groups (Big Flame in Liverpool is an obvious example) could also be supported. We did have big meetings in Stechford as you know full well. We involved a normally excluded section of the population in politics. But these meetings would have been larger if we had had one agreed candidate, and if both you and myself had spoken for her or him. What you must understand is this, Paul. There are thousands of militants all over the country who will not support any far left group because of the divisions and splits, and splits within splits, that characterise us as a whole. This layer of militants which exists increasingly in the working class could, however, be mobilised by united initiatives. Would that not be in the best interests of the far left as a whole? Naturally your organisation being the largest would benefit the most, but in any case what is more important is that revolutionary politics as a whole would benefit. Matters such as defending Socialist Worker against attacks would, both in political and material terms, be more productive from a united front approach. I would certainly be prepared to speak with you to defend Socialist Worker and raise money for it both on the campuses and in the black areas where your agitational material has played an extremely useful role. More importantly the defence of John Deason would be facilitated by the SWP giving even minimal information and consultation on the campaign to the rest of the far left. Surely you must realise that to collapse every political initiative into 'building our party' can in the medium term, leave alone the long term, be disastrous both for you and the far left as a whole? What is the point of sowing dragon's teeth if the final harvest is going to yield only flies which can easily be swatted? On this question you should take a leaf out of the book of our French and Spanish comrades of the CR. Both organisations are considerably larger than yours and yet both do not make narrow party chauvinism the central thrust of their work. On the contrary, they accept their responsibilities as large revolutionary organisations and attempt to unite the forces to the left of the traditional mass organisations — and not without success.
Socialist Worker itself commented on the 'significant degree of support for the united revolutionary left, which got an average of two and a half per cent of the votes' in the French Local elections. Our joint vote in Stechford amounts to 2.4 per cent and a united campaign with a single candidate would have polled a higher percentage. The reason for our higher vote is essentially because of our united front approach, I hope that you will discuss some of these points with your comrades. Naturally we would publish any reply by yourself, but far more important are the questions which I have raised. Just remember, Paul, that revolutionary parties are not brought into existence by arithmetical growth and recruitment, nor are old, decaying reformist parties broken by abuse, let alone by physical attacks. The historical process has revealed the complexities of such developments in the past. It no doubt has many surprises in store for all of us, but short-cuts I don't think will be among them. In comradeship, Tariq.
----- pull-quotes -----
pattern which disproves the essential thesis of your organisation on the question of left unity. Your position is basically the following: "We are the largest group on the far left, therefore we, and we alone, constitute either the nucleus of or in fact we ourselves are