BACK the CAMPAIGN ATTACK THE BILL

Sam Gordon is a garage worker and T&GWU member: There is no way of changing the situation without socialism' When I came to England from Jamaica in 1961 the Conservatives were in power. The housing situation was terrible. I was living in Notting Hill Gate with my wife and conditions were very, very bad. We had one room to live in. Sometimes we had to use it as a sitting room or a bedroom, a bathroom and even a toilet.

The Labour Party came round and talked about socialism and I voted for them. I nave always voted Labour since I came to this country.

But they have fallen far short of socialism. Many of the things they should have done they didn't do.

Take medicines. The drugs industry should be under state control. That's why the National Health Service can't function.

Look at North Sea oil. Instead of harnessing the North Sea for the people, the Tories have given it to the Americans. The Labour Party did not blink an eyelid.

Another thing. Those Labour MPs who voted with the Tories on the Common Market should be thrown out. In acting the way they dia, they not only hurt the Labour Party, but they helped keep the Tories in power.

I went to a tenants' meeting on the estate and some people said 'take rents out of politics, but I said we shouldn't do that because it was a political question.

A Labour councillor was there and he said there was nothing he could do. He said they had got to obey the government, but if we wanted to protest we could.

I asked him if he as a councillor couldn't do anything, what did he expect us to do.

Take the Industrial Relations Act. When the Tories brought it in, had the Labour Party and the TUC co-operated against it, they would have forced them out of office.

I don't think they wanted to. If they had done that workers would have asked them to carry out socialist policies, but they did not want Take the Industrial Relations Act. When the Torles brought It in, operate against it iney woula nave rorcea nem out or onice. I aon't i leaders during one of the massive demonstrations against the Bill. Insti working class to defeat the government, they allowed the Bill to become that. They are reformists. They are part of the capitalist clique.

Harold Wilson was the man who sold out the Africans in Rhodesia. Britain has a lot of shares at stake in Rhodesia and South Africa.

When a few hundred persons were involved in incidents in Anguilla they sent soldiers, yet they can't go to Rhodesia.

I think the time is ripe now to build an alternative leadership.

Look at the monetary crisis. When Nixon decided not to exchange the dollar for gold, that was a death nail in the coffin of capitalism. It set off a chain reaction. No money in the capitalist world is safe. Today I heard on the news that gold has gone over $100. There is no way of changing the situation without socialism.

Everybody feels this crisis. Never in the history of British trade unionism have the teachers and civil servants gone on strike, but they are living on peanuts and they have been forced to take action.

What do I think of the League? The only_thing we have is our word. The League stands on principle and neither Labour, Tory nor CP has ever said that.

I was a member of the Communist Party. I paid my subscription and I read the paper [the 'Morning Star']. One day I asked them how they are INJU had going to change the situation and they told me about getting men into the trade unions and into parliament.

I asked them: 'How is it that after 40 years you still haven't got anybody in the House of Commons? How can you do anything?' I just quit then and there. They are reformists.

What kind of party do they have in France? They go along with the right wing, with Pompidou. In the recent elections Pompidou said should the left win a majority he would not let them form a government. They did not challenge him. In other words they have no power.

Why do we need a revolutionary socialist party in this country? Because only 7 per cent of the people here own about 90 per cent of the wealth. The Queen, the Duke, the barons, the millionaires who own Centre Point; they own all the wealth. The majority of the people have nothing.

Workers have advanced since the war, but with the progress in science and technology had Britain been run on a socialist basis they would have been very much better off.

Some people say a worker has a car, a fridge and a television, but they don't say how for it. They don't tell you his many hours he to work wife, has to work too. He's the Labour Party TUC •04 lInK tney wantea 1o. ADOVe: IUC Above: -... ad of uniting the strength of the aw. killing himself little by little.

Capitalism is a rotten system. It's finders keepers when you are big, but hand it in when you are small and weak.

Prince Phillip says pull your socks up, but he's never done a day's work in his life. A couple of years ago the Queen said she needed money, but she's got millions and millions piled up.

I recently saw a man's pay slip and it had 30 hours overtime on it. Why does he do that? If he had money as they say he would sit at home and draw or go for a three months' cruise on a yacht. If a man has money he doesn't want to kill himself.

They say this is the affluent society, yet there are thousands and thousands living without even basics.

Suffering has been going on for hundreds of years and I have yet to see God come out and do anything about it. The church are the greatest crooks in the world.

At home we used to have a harvest festival and many poor people would give corn to the church and they would sell it. The people were poor and they had to make sacrifices to give the corn, but who do you think the church sold it to— the same people who gave it.

From those days I began to question the church. The parson didn't do any work, yet he was treated like a God. He didn't work, run, he was super human, yet you had to slog a. ong.

They told people you mustn't care for any riches. But look at Church of England. You can guess their riches.

I may not know much political theory, but I know the practice. I have known hunger In 1951 in Jamaica it was real real bad. One Sunday morning my wife and I got up and we had a cup of bush tea in the little board house I had built and come evening we hadn't had a crust.

I asked my wife if she was hungry. and she said no because that was her spirit. But cried. It seems strange to think of a big man crying. But I cried because I knew she and I were dying. I got to think 'Is this right?' One side of the nation with everything and the other with nothing.

Jamaica is a vicious place. You go to pick up a crust and they stamp on your hands. The police all carry guns and they shoot first and ask questions later.

When you have money you can buy what you want. Sir Gerald Nabarro said 'When I can pay dogs to bark for me why shouldn't I?' Look at the Poulson affair and now Lonrho. It goes on everyYet to the man who works for 40 hours Heath and his crew say: 'You cause the inflation' Meanwhile the real culprits go scot free.

In my opinion if you are following world events workers throughout the world are beginning to demand a share in what they create. Make no mistake, however much land there is, nothing will come out of it without labour. If wealth is accumulated labour, who is doing the labour-the working man of course.

How much do they get out of it?

The policies of government were bound •to happen the monetary crisis. banks, the big companies want their pro- their profits and : to pay if not the workers?

Free bargaining has been taken away, at the same time the worker is losing money because the pound is depreciating so fast.

Wages are not standing still. They are depreciating all the time. The things you could buy with pence yo need £5 and 10 You are losing money on account of the rising prices The price of beef has gone up and Heath and company tell the housewife to shop around and buy chicken or pork The same people who control beef control lamb, chicken and pork. Once you change over they say: 'On account of demand we've st to raise the price?

And after a long day's w..K is it practical to shop around? It's stupid The government twist people.

don't know But the young people and demanding. The young The basic thing is to educate workers. You've got to let them what is going on. Most of all you've got to bring all sections of workers together.

Ford workers from the Halewood, Merseyside plant during pay negotiations in 1971. Above: 'We have noticed a gradual erosion in our standard of living .... buying food is a weekly nightmare for my wife trudging from supermarket to supermarket comparing prices, trying to 'un. you you les.

leir oliyer. eal, ing we Jilt vas be3ut Sut nd nk he he ce. nd ds. nd esou Sir ne ks ni 1lre re ut 1g ut The job is to raise the political consciousness' John Gaffney works at the Ford plant, Halewood, Merseyside.

His political and industrial education began when he left the British army after serving in Guyana. He wanted to be a policeman, but had to settle for the assembly line.

Work in the factory soon changed his attitudes. His hostility to unions disappeared when he realized that under Tory rule his wage packet was in jeopardy.

He also witnessed the collapse of the Ford pay claim primarily because of lack of leadership from the unions and stewards. Now John is helping to develop the Socialist Labour League on Merseyside.

I think the time is ripe to develop the SLL. As has been analysed in the document, the economic crisis has completely ruined the monetary set-up of capitalism.

What we have to make workers see is that they will be made to pay for this crisis —it is not something far away from themselves.

My own experience proves that things can get through. ! left the army full of all the propaganda they give you. The first thing I wanted to do was to be a policeman, but there were no openings so I landed up at Ford's.

I used to argue about the unions, saying they were ruining the country and the other lads used to laugh at me. Then I realized it was my wage packet the money was being taken from by the Tory government and began to have a WORKERS - TH save a few pence.' rethink.

The place to really develop the party is the shop floor and right inside the trade unions. This is where most of the discussion of politics goes on and where the men come into direct conflict every day. It is at this point of conflict where we ought to be.

Once the men see a man who is dedicated and taking up the tasks of the working class, he becomes known in the plant. The next thing is people come up to. him for his opinions and fact. Usually DEFEND RIGHT to STRIKE GOVERNNEIT HANDS OFT FORD NECOTIATIONS there is an argument—they are doing it to test out your ideas. But something new always comes out of an argument, things are never the same after it.

The job is to raise the political consciousness working class—-most of them only half realize the political issues. It's up to us to make thei clear.

The shop stewards often say there is no room for politics on the shop floor. That suits them fine • because • it takes. the heat off them. The thing is that every struggle workers are in is political and many of these stewards cannot deal with them. That. is why men will come up to another bloke who has put his position over at a mass meeting. This is the beginning of leadership.

Leadership, of course, is a crucial issue at Ford as the present pay claim has demonstrated. Right at the beginning of this struggle the Halewood lads came out. They would have come out for the pay claim even if it had meant a fight with the government.

I am not exaggerating the strength. There was a lot of weak sections who wanted to retreat, but they are there in every struggle.

What was needed was strong decisive leadership. But this did not come. The unions dragged the issue out. There was a refusal—a deliberate one I think-to face up to the political reality that a fight against the Tories was posed. So the men got demoralized. They had no information; Jones and Scanlon were never heard.

This to me was a case history-It's going on throughout the whole working class on a national scale. That is why the time is ripe to build this alternative party.

Meanwhile the Tories are belting away. The document outlines belting away pasic rights in danger-1 really don't think it can be improved on in this respect. It answers my grievances anyway.

A most important thing to remember when you are presenting things to workers that they need something solid, something they can grip on to. The programme must be as clear and definite as possible and the party must be well identified too. On housing, wages, unions, we must put our policy forward in the simplest, clearest way.

I think people are faced with two problems. There is a lingering belief that things will eventually get better-that someone will come along and rescue the situation. At the same time there is a fear that they might be next for an attack. This is a fear of the government caused by no leadership whatsoever. We must change this situation with our own activity. This is the biggest job immediately ahead.

'Give workers the leadership they badly need' An ex-member of the Communist Party contributes to our discussion on building the When I got married about four years ago, - was earning about £26 a week net, 'and' my wife and I could live quite well on that amount—in fact, we ate best rump steak twice a week.

But since those days and two children later, we have noticed a gradual erosion in our standard of living, even though I am now earning in excess of £36 a week net.

It seems increasingly impossible to find money to pay everything and buying food is a weekly nightmare for my wife as she trudges from supermarket to supermarket comparing prices, trying to save a few pence.

About 18 months ago my wife and I joined the Communist Party, as we were both disillusioned Labour supporters and hated everything about the Tories and what they stood for.

But it took me quite a while to realize that all the Communist Party seems to teach is more democratic methods for achieving less democratic aims (i.e. bureaucracy).

Nowhere in their 'British Road to Socialism' do they explain how the British working class is connected with the international working class. The 'British Road' could have been written by Stalin himself.

It takes a party like the Socialist Labour League to lead the working class, a party with the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.

So, onward SLL, and give the working class the leadership it badly needs. You won't be disappointed.

JAPANESE WORKERS FIGHT bench was due to start, the grand closely rel day belore the General Strike workers' bench of the Supreme Court ment's la unions. ruled by eight to seven that believe th strikes by government and is up to tl public corporation workers If the FOR BASIC RIGHTS were illegal. Furthermore, the mends ag judgement said, workers who strike, or right to strike. instigated strikes should be refuses to subject to criminal punish- democratic in Japan at the end of World ment. a massive The timing of the judgement from rail was 'a fix' by the Tanaka office em] antaramant Tha nonsent Was hana Ann.

ALEX MITCHELL

special government committee will report next month on whether to give workers in Tapan's Dublic service industries the strike.

Its decision will bring to a head a long and bitter fight between the government and labour unions. The investigating committee has been locked in fruitless deliberations for no less than eight years. The committee comprises six pro-management memhers.

PIvI six pro-labour and eight 'neutrals'. The chairman is Yoshinor Maeda, who is also president of NHK, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation.

The talking has been longwinded and inconclusive because the government has been afraid to antagonize workers in public sectors like railways, 406% 2,2 the Post Office, schools the civil service.

But the issue was placed firmly on the agenda last month during the country's first-ever General Strike the public sector. It began at midnight on Thursday, April 26, and was called off by trade union leaders late on Saturday evening after an agreement had been reached with negotiators from the Tanaka government.

The unions in the strike, all members of Sohyo, the TUC of the public service workers, had three demands: higher pay; pensions for all workers; and the right to strike.

The deal between the government and the Spring Labour Offensive Joint Struggle Committee contained six points. The government promised: • To normalize labourmanagement relations in government enterprises and public corporations. (This is a reference to the high-handed and anti-union conduct of many of the heads of public corporations.) • To be 'sympathetic' towards any advice by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and a report by the Committee for Freedom of Association. • Disciplinary action against strikers would be taken with fairness and prudence. (Translated into common or garden english this means there English be no would victimization after the General Strike.) • To continue studying the problem of making compensation for the postponement of pay increases in connection with disciplinary actions taken in the past. • To respect the results of deliberations among such labour-related ministers as the Labour Minister, the Welfare Minister and the Prime Minister's Office director general. • To respect any recommendation by • the Third Council for the Civil Service System on the problem of basic labour rights of public service personnel.

The fact that in 1973 railwaymen, post office workers, teachers and civil servants are still struggling for the basic right to strike is the outcome of a number of key factors in the history of the Japanese workers' movement.

The right to strike was forbidden by the early leaders of the Meiji Restoration at the end of the 19th century. The Imperial Diet enacted vicious anti-labour laws: the Criminal Law (1880), 'the Law Concerning Assembly and Political Association' (1890) and the Public Peace Police Law (1900). This legislation outlawed all the democratic rights of the working class-the right assemily, freedom 01 speech, thought and the Press, and the right to organize The first working men's organization's were pledged to fighting for all the basic democratic rights, including the The big movements began War I and again in 1926. But when the militarists and big business ciques, ine zaidarsu, hucinace alinnac tha mailates, took over in the 1930s, trade unions were banned and militants were jailed, tortured or executed In the constitution imposed by the United States after the war, the right to strike was enshrine 7 Article 28. This clause sp fically 'guarantees all workers the right to organize, bargain and act collectively. Although this principle was observed in practice by workers in private industry, successive Tory governments have stated that it does not annly to nuhlic cervice warkapriy lu puvil service WULKers. They are a special case, the argument goes, whose labour cannot be withdrawn because they are employed by and serve the state.

This government edict was followed by a Supreme Court decision which outlawed strikes in the public service. On Wednesday. April 25, a guvernment. Ine court was giving its finding on cases which had occurred in 1958 and 1962—why had it taken so many years to draw up a decision?

There can only be one conclusion as to why the court issued its surprise decision on the eve of the strike: it was to intimidate workers and to foster the image of them as 'law-breakers' Premier Tanaka has made clear that he wants the government inquiry committee to come up with a recommendation hannino ctribac in tha uduun vanning suikes in une public sector. He went so far as to make a statement to this effect on television.

The committee, on the other hand, is showing signs of stress. After eight years' work, it is now reluctant to reach a final decision. Chairman Maeda told newsmen last week: 'The problem of public hailed the as the 'lit hailed the as a majo gressive' f the Japan divide the up into ( unions anc against th riaht to c LU S porations.

Instead

imposed fraud, desi the Mitsut 'Democr japanese and societ most urg, right to strike is lated to the governbour policy, and 1 at the final decision he government.' committee recomzainst the right to Tanaka steps in and › concede this basic c right, there will be show of indignation Iwaymen and post ployees. They have been aeprived I inis basic nirind of thir harin right by a series of reactionary Tory governments. And the Japan Communist Party (JCP) bears a major responsibility for this situation.

the war the JCP e MacArthur forces berating army'. They : 'peace' constitution ir blow for the 'proforces. They allowed lese ruling class to e labour movement company-by-company d did not lead a fight le outlawing of the :trike in nahlic corof exposing the USconstitution as a igned to re-establish bishis and Mitsuis in the party declared: atization of the politics, economy y was placed, as the ent and important issue in post-war defeated Japan on the order of the day internationally, as well, in connection with the task to sweep away militarism. Immediately after the resumption of its activity, the Communist Party of Japan demanded the complete implementation of the Potsdam Declaration . . • The 'Action Programme' adopted by the Fourth and Fifth Congresses veritably reeked with the deal cooked up at Potsdam between Stalin and the leaders of imperialism. It 'demanded the following points as the basic contents of the forthcoming democratic transformation: the abolition of the despotic Tenno system (Emperor system); the establishment of a democratic republic system whose sovereignty rests with the people: the eradication of militarism; the eradication of the parasitic landlord-system; the e Purse and punishment war criminals; the disintegration of monopoly capital; the establishment of a minimum wage system and seven-hour working day system; the people's control over financial institutions and key industries and the rehabilitation by the people of land. 'In this way the lines of the Communist Party of Japan adopted at the Fourth and Fifth Party Congresses rectly pointed out the basic direction in which Japanese politics should have marched, that is, the complete implementation of the Potsdam Declaration and thoroughness of the democratic transformaWhen MacArthur began to implement his post-war legislation, the Stalinists were in the forefront of those who sang his praises. Their reformist demands (see above) were almost entirely inaugurated by the occupation government.

While they were 'demanding the complete implementation' of Potsdam, it is indeed tragic to note what really took place at this summit. At the conference in July 1945, Stalin was informed that the atomic bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Churchill recalls: 'I can see it all as if it were yesterday. He [Stalin] seemed to be delighted. A new bomb! Of extraordinary power! Probably decisive on the whole Japanese war! What a bit of luck! President Harry S. Truman said in his memoirs: 'All he [Stalin] said was that he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make "good use of it against the Japanese"!' The Stalinists in Japan beIt was in line with Stalin's deals at Potsdam in July, 1945, (above left) that the Japanese Communist. Party set out their support for the peace' Top right: Japan's surrender, after the dropping of the bomb. Above right: Trains burnt during recent General Strike in Japan.

trayed the working class in supporting the 'peace' constitution which contained precious few concessions for them. Today the constitution stands exposed: the militarists are back in business, the big business cliques were never purged and broken up, nor was the minimum wage system and the seven-hour day implemented.

The JCP has never campaigned seriously for the basic rights of the working class in Japan since the war because their policy has been dominated by a powerful tendency towards nationalism: they helped harness the working class to 'reconstruct' the warlevelled country.

The militancy in the working class-clearly revealed in the General Strike during this year's wages fight, in the 7 million-strong May Day stoppage and the campaign against Tanaka's attempt to revise the electoral laws-means that the fight for basic rights is on in earnest in Japan.

Sir ce May-June 1968, the Soviet Stalinists have been haunted by the spectre of revolution in western Europe and the growth of Trotskyism in the advanced countries in the west. Fearful of losing their parasitic privileges at home and their control of the labour movement abroad, the Soviet bureaucracy has begun a campaign to once again discredit and distort the principles and history of Trotsky's struggle for the regeneration of the USSR and the world-wide revolution of the working class. The Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1972 published 'Against Trotskyism', a compendium of documents, articles, extracts, speeches and resolutions aimed at discrediting Trotskyism and distorting completely the truth about the relations between Lenin and Trotsky. In this series of articles MICHAEL BANDA replies to this book.

Press. which the working-class representatives dominate and lead.

Trotsky clearly saw even The proletariat, in order to in 1905 that the Russian consolidate its power, cannot bourgeoisie would be un- but widen the base of the revolution. Many sections of able to undertake even the working masses, particuthe most basic demo- larly in the countryside, will cratic tasks. The peas- be drawn into the revolution and become politically organantry, he correctly anti- ized only after the advancecipated, could play no guard of the revolution, the urban proletariat, stands at independent political the helm of state. Revolurole. tionary agitation and organThe only way in which the ization will then be conducted democratic tasks could be ful- with the help of state resources. filled was under the leadership The legislative power itself will of the proletarian state. become a powerful instrument Here is a selection of the for revolutionizing the masses. key passages from the book The nature of our social'Results and Prospects' pub- historical relations, which lays lished by Trotsky and Parvus the whole burden of the bour(who later renounced the geois revolution upon the theory in 1905: shoulders of the proletariat, When we speak of will not only create tremendous workers' government we difficulties for the workers' have in view a government in government but, in the first Plan 25%4 period of its existence at any rate, will also give it invaluable advantages. This will affect the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry.

The Russian revolution does not, and for a long time will not, permit the establishment of any kind of bourgeoisconstitutional order that might solve the most elementary problems of democracy. All the 'enlightened' efforts of reformer-bureaucrats like Witte and Stolypin are nullified by their own struggle for existence. Consequently, the fate of the most elementary revolutionary interests of the peasantryeven the peasantry as a whole, as an estate, is bound up with the fate of entire revolution, i.e., with the fate of the proletariat.

The proletariat in power will stand before the peasants as the class which has emancipated it. The domination of the proletariat will mean not only democratic equality, free self-government, the transference of the whole burden of taxation to the rich classes, the dissolution of the standing army in the armed people and the abolition of compulsory church imposts, but also recognition of all revolutionary changes (expropriations) in land relationships carried out by the peasants. The proletariat will make these changes the starting-point for further state measures in agriculture.

Under such conditions the Left: Russian peasants, delegates the First Duma (parliament)

of 1906. Trotsky pointed out that the peasantry could play no independent political role.

Russian peasantry in the first and most difficult period of the revolution will be interested in the maintenance of a proletarian regıme (workers' democracy) at all events not less than was the French peasantry in the maintenance of the military regime of Napoleon Bonaparte, which guaranteed to the new propertyowners, by the force of its bayonets, the inviolability of their holdings. And this means that the representative body of the nation, convened under the leadership of the proletariat, which has secured the support of the peasantry, will be nothing else than a democratic dress for the rule of the proletariat.

But is it not possible that the peasantry may push the proletariat aside and take its place? This is impossible. All historical experience protests against this assumption. Historical ( experience shows that the peasantry are absolutely incapable of taking up an independent political role. will The Russian bourgeoisie surrender the entire revolutionary position to the proletariat. It will also have to surrender the revolutionary hegemony over the peasants. In such a situation, created by the transference of power to he proletariat, nothing remain or the peasantry to do but te rally to the regime of workers' democracy. It will not matter much even if the peasantry does this with a degree consciousness not larger than that with which it usually rallies to the bourgeois regime. But while every bourgeois party commanding the votes of the peasantry hastens to use its power in order to swindle and deceive the peasants and then, if the worst comes to the worst, gives place to another capitalist party, the proletariat, relying on the peasantry, will bring all forces into play in order to raise the cultural level of the countryside and develop the political consciousness of the peasantry. From what we have said above, it will be clear how we regard the idea of a 'proletarian and peasant dictatorship'. It is not really a matter of whether we regard it as admissible in principle, whether 'we do or do not desire' such a form of political co-operation. We simply think that it is unrealizable - at least in a direct immediate sense.

('Permanent Revolution'. pp. 202-205. New Park Publications Ltd, 1971.)

Instead of 'questioning the hegemony of the proletariat', as the editors of this volume lyingly maintain, it is quite clear and evident: even these brief quotations that Trotsky did exactly the opposite.

The unique feature of the theory of permanent revolution is precisely that it first demonstrated and correctly unveiled the historical dialectic which was to push the working class right into the leadership of the Russian Revolution.

Lenin himself broke with idea of the 'democratic dictatorship' in April 1917 on his return from exile in Switzerland. He recognized that this formula had become outdated and dangerous because it was providing wide circles in the Bolshevik leadership with the excuse to conciliate the newly formed Provisional GovernProminent among these conciliators was then, Pravda member of the editorial board. The position of the Old Bolsheviks, Stalin among them was mercilessly attacked by Lenin in his 'Apri Theses' when he battled to break the Bolshevik party from the petty-bourgeois democracy and turn it towards the working class and the conquest of power.

In May 1917 Lenin attended the conterence of the Mezhrayontsi (inter-regional grand based on St Petersburg and made up of former members of both major factions of the Russian socialist movement.

Lenin moved a resolution for the fusion of the Mezhrayontsi with the Bolsheviks on the grounds that the main differences between the two organizations had been removed.

This fusion, referred to disparagingly by the authors of this book, was a result of a recognition by both Trotsky and Lenin that the basis existed for complete merger of their respective organizations.

The editors claim that Trotsky's 'break with opportunism' (which is how these arch-opportunists describe his joining the Bolshevik Party) was 'only a formality.

This is certainly not how Lenin viewed the matter: In July 1917, writing to the Central Committee on the slate of Bolshevik candidates for the Constituent Assembly, Lenin attacked the presence on the slate of 'such an immoderate number of candidates from people who have hardly been tested and who have just recently joined the He went on: 'It goes without saying [sic!] that nobody would oppose such a nomination, i for example, as that of L. D. Trotsky, tor, in the first place Trotsky jimmediately upon his arrival took the position of an internationalist; in the second place, he fought among k the Mezhravontsi for fusion with the Bolsheviks: and finally during the onerous July days he proved himself both equal to the task and a devoted adherent of the party w of the revolutionary proletariat. Obviously that cannot be said for a maJority of the recent members of the party who appear on the slate. ('The Stalin School of Falsification' p. Il. Pioneer Publishers, 1962.)

But then Lenin did not have to consult an Institute for Marxism-Leninism staffed by time-served liars and hacks in order to arrive at a judgement of Trotsky's politics and his capacity of leadership. And if he was in any doubt about these after penning the words quoted above, the doubts were certainly removed by Trotsky's leadership of the October uprising.

CONTINUED TOMORROW...

JAPAN IN LATIN AMERICA