curious criticism of the stand taken by World Outlook on. the British elections.
“To be condemned, it appears, is the strong hope expressed by World Outlook for a Labour victory. "We think it will make a difference which side wins," World Outlook declared in a short article in the issue dated October 16, ‘which was published before the country went to the polls October 45.
World Outlook offered ‘several’ reasons for hoping for a Labour victory. In other countries, it could have considerable consequences. Especially in Canada and the United States,.a Labour victory could further the catise of independent political action,
In Britain, said World Outlook, a victory would be of prime importance, "This is not due to any Loyalty to the principles of socialism on the part of Harold Wilson -- he has none, It is because a Labour victory is the most favorable way for the British working class to learn the limitations of the Labour ‘movement, as it stands today, and the need ‘to break through these’ limitations."
It would seem that this perfectly clear stand would be ‘beyond misinterpretation. However, Cliff Slaughter, writing in The Newsletter, sought to utilize this article to foist on World Outlook a view it does not hold; namely, "that the occupation of official positions within the bourgeois state will provide ‘the possibility of influencing the increasingly ‘powerful occupants of these positions."
AS "proof" that World Outlook in actuality holds a position it vigorously opposes, Siaughter cites World Outlook's reasoning that a Labour victory would facilitate organization of a left wing ata more advanced level than would be possible if Labour suffered: a defeat. Slaughter chooses to interpret this as meaning that World Outlook believes e bourgeois government can be ‘pressured! by repre-~ sentatives of the workers accepting “official positions" in it... -.
- Evidently Slaughter feels that this singularly tortured "proof" might not be too convincing and so he drags in the article by T.J. Peters in the October 23 World Outlook which analyzes the outcome of the election from a Trotskyist point of view.
‘Here again what arouses Slaughter is the fact that.-Peters is. pleased over the Labour victory despite the fact, as Peters himself flatly states, that “in the ivery nature of -a- social-democratic govern-= ment lie the seeds of class betrayal," : .
m1 3~
~ ‘In the process of berating Peters for being pleased over a Labour victory, Slaughter indicates some positions of his own that are astonishing, ‘to say ‘the least.
‘Speaking of the. Wilson government, Slaughter declares: "Ac-= cording to us it is a capitalist. government,in a Labour disguise. | ~With Wilson in charge of leadership it will.carry out capitalist policies. against: the working class, Not to prepare the workers for this fight is a 2 betrayal. " ;
It is reasonable to infer from the statement, made without any qualifications, that the Wilson government is a *Ncapitalist government" dedicated to "capitalist policies" that Slaughter considered it a matter of indifference whether Labour or the Tories won. ' And this stand, of course, would be completely consistent with his criticism of World Out iook!s. ‘position favoring a Labour victory.
As a further indication that Slaughter actually: holds this view, we quote the following criticism which he levels at Peters: "Peters chooses to ignore the fact that leading capitalist spokesmen like 'The Economist!. recommended a Labour vote.
What is most curious. about this is that. ‘Slaughter himself chooses to ignore the fact that a leading spokesman of the Socialist. Labour League, The Newsletter, likewise recommended.a Labour vote, In the issue of October 10, the main headline, spread across the entire page in giant type, was "VOTE LABOUR OCTOBER 15." The subhead, in big, bold italics, read, "Fight for socialist policies!" Thus, in order to fight for socialist policies, The Newsletter told the British workers to VOTE LABOUR OCTOBER 15.
But this very same headline could have been used for the stand taken by World Outlook which was condemned by Cliff Slaughter! [World Outlook used less dramatic titles: "On the Eve of the British Elec~ tions” and "Labour's Victory in the British Elections.' ‘7
Things thus become curiouser and curiouser. If The Newsletter of November.7 is correct in: condemning World Outlook, then The News-~ letter. of October 10 is also to be condemned =~ harshly to be condemned; for, by asking the. British workers to vote for the formation of a "capitalist government" that will carry out "capitalist poli-. cies," The Newsletter was guilty of a betrayal every bit as bad as if it had called on the American workers to vote for the Democratic party. Was Slaughter's article thus really aimed, not at World Outiook, but at unnamed opponents in the Socialist Labour League? -
In behalf of these supposed opponents, it should be pointed out that if The Newsletter of October 10 was correct in appealing to the workers to VOTE LABOUR OCTOBER 15, then The Newsletter of Novem ber 7 is to be condemned for falling into an. ultraleftist position; -i,e., failing to properly distinguish between a Tory victory and a- “Labour victory, between a Tory government and a Labour government. =
oal4-
Of course, it can be argued that this is not an accidental manifestation of differences in the SLL or.evidence of political schizophrenia. Truth, it might be maintained, is to be found.in both issues of The Newsletter -- the two numbers of the weekly journal of the Socialist Labour League must be taken, not in isolation from each other, but in their unity, since each presents but one aspect of the rounded policy of the SLL.’ Thus we:are able to see a: powerful combination of the crassest opportunism (The Newsletter joins The Economist in appealing to the public to VOTE LABOUR OCTOBER 15) and the most rigid ultraleftism (a campaign is mounted to reach those who consider it a "betrayal" to favor formation: of a Labour government as against a Tory ‘government )e ; =
Still other possibilities are open. The editors may - really. be pro-Labour but face such dearth of material that they have no choice but to fill space with whatever is available. .Or it may be that they were pro-Labour but have changed their minds and now believe that they betrayed the British workers when they wrote VOTE LABOUR OCTOBER 15.
We leave to the connoisseurs of such curiosities the pleasure of further speculation. For us, we think it was quite right to cam= paign for Labour and we hope that. the Labour party will win the next election with a truly crushing majority.
os