MOSCOW COMES TO FRANCO'S AID

The policy of diplomatic, trade and commercial relations with Spanish fascism adopted by the bureaucracies of the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and China is a source of great dismay to the leaders of the Spanish Communist Party. Having boasted for many years that their 'comrades' had no relations with Franco, they are now unable to explain the turn in Stalinist policy to the workers fighting fascisn They have been forced into denouncing—naturally, more in sorrow than in anger-the position while trying their best to present it as a 'mistake' or an isolated aberration. In fact the policy is being by the bureaucrats. And it is in line with the entire counterrevolutionary history of Stalinism in Spain.

The latest issue of the Spanish Communist Party's magazine 'Nuestra Bandera' ('Our Flag') carries details of a speech by Central Committee member Enrique Lopez, at an international Stalinist symposium held in Essen, West Germany, in February.

The symposium was organized by the magazine 'World Marxist Review'. But the report of the discussion carried by this magazine omits all the specific criticisms of east European countries made by the Spanish delegation and simpiy reports that the Spanish delegate 'spoke out against the establishment of diplomatic relations and other government-level contacts with Franco's fascist regime' All the specific passages Polish governments have been excised from the report. 'Nuestra Bandera's' version makes it clear why the 'Review's' Soviet editors cut out these passages.

Their delegate took issue even with the title of the meeting: 'Fascism, Neo-Fascism and the Dangers These Entail.' Lopez said the use of the word 'neo-fascism' gave rise to the 'erroneous and unjustified' idea that there was no longer such a thing as fascism in itself. He also expressed surprise that the preparation of reports for the meeting should have been placed entirely in the hands 'of parties fighting under conditions of bourgeois democracy. He said:

'It seems to us that, at a meeting like this, it is necessary to bear in mind that there are communist parties in Portugal, in Greece, in Spain, which face not the "neo-fascist fascist oppression.' His delegation had been surprised to find that their invitation to the meeting said they could take part in the discussion 'if you want to' : Clearly the three Spanish delegates, Lopez, Manuel Azcarate and Mauricio Perez, felt they were being badly treated by the This is no less than they deserve because all three are hardened Stalinists who are simply proving unable to adapt with sufficient pliability to the latest turn of Moscow policy.

But there is plenty to show that their "hosts' at Essen badly wanted them to keep quiet.

Lopez raised so many embarrassing questions for all concerned that it is worth reproducing what he said in some detail. He began with the European Security Conference, for which the Soviet government has been campaigning for more than seven years.

This conference has been declared open to all governments in Europe-and to the United States. The invitation includes the military and fascist dictatorships in Spain, Greece and Portugal. Lopez said the Spanish CP wanted to reiterate its opposition to inviting Franco: 'The problems of European security can be discussed and solved perfectly well without any need of assistance from a government like Franco's. And, on the other hand, to accept his presence means, today, to give certain political aid, certain international respect, to the ultra-tascist group which holds power in Spain.' In this passage Lopez only reveals his inability to understand for wilful attempt to cover up) the real aim of this polıcy: to shackle the working class in both western and eastern Europe and avert the threat of social revolution in the capitalist countries and political revolution in the deformed workers' states.

This policy requires the participation of the most solidly anti-working class regimes to act as the pillars of capitalist rule in the west. Lopez is simply trying to avoid this basic bureaucratic necessity.

That is why he can express the 'surprise and disgust' of the Spanish CP when it learnt of the decision of the German Democratic Republic to exchange ambassadors with Franco-a decision about which the Spanish CP was neither informed nor consulted.

(It is worth noting that supports 'as an exceptional case' the Cuban government's close relations with Franco: these were made necessary by the need to break with the US, he said.)

Particularly galling and embarrassing to Lopez and his comrades, was the reaction of the Spanish fascist Press, which welcomed the step by the socialist community' to abandon the attitude adopted towards Spain since World War II and establish full state The German Stalinist newspapers were no better. The official 'Neues Deutschland' of January 13, 1973, according to Lopez, contained articles on Spain which 'deformed reality' so much that they didn't even mention the word ! 'fascism'.

The paper contained a photograph of Franco with an almost eulogistic blurb, totally obscuring his relations with Hitler and presenting his accession to power as a mere military coup. Lopez went on to com about the Polish governm invitation to a delegatio pseudo-parliamentarians Franco's Cortes [parliam He said everyone knew there is neither freedom, tions, nor parliament in S and that the Polish invit was a form of support fo 'farce' of the Cortes. 'Rut there is much wi vuL LICIC 10 bull YV1 he added. 'The delegatio Franco's pseudo-parliame ians was led by the Coul Mayalde, who was chie police in one of the bloc periods of the fascist te and among its members General Iniesta Cano, a n ious ultra-fascist and pr head of the Civil Guard, of the direct instigators o ferocious repression our p is suffering today.

(The Moscow Stalinist: not unaware of Cano's re A commentary on the s situation in Spain broa over Moscow Radio on Mi describes how 'the "ul together with the police ried out a demonstratio which they insulted the ernment [sic] and demanded j additional power for Gen Iniesta Cano, well-known for his repression of demonstrathen turned to try •plain lent's in of ent]'. that elecipain, ation r the vIe, in of intarnt of if of ›diest error;

was lotor'esent if the eople s are cord. strike dcast ay 26 Itras"

car)n in gorLabour Party conference ... [made clear] • that no organization in Europe which tries to open its doors to the Franco regime will be able to count on the support of the socialists.' Lopez' appeal is based on the policies of the so-called "pact of freedom' adopted by the Spanish CP at its congress last year nroce lact raar This bases itself on the prospect of alliances with the military and church heirarchies for the 're-establishment of democracy' on the basis of EEC entry and full co-operation with the European bourgeoisie.

The Spanish Stalinists are simply asking their counterparts in the leadership of the Soviet and East European CPs to wait until this 'nen reality' has come into bein! - with the assistance of the Vatican and Harold Wilson.

But whatever Lopez' aim may have been. the question he raises must he answered. not just be the Soviet and East European Stalinists, bu! above all by the British Communist Party leaders uhn are sometimes commendab!! vocal ahout the brutality of the Franco egime but always maintain a conardly sience about the ties between Madrid and Moscow.

PAGE Tuesday June BOOK REVIEW, PART "The General Strike, May 1926. By Christopher Farman. Rupert Hart-Davis. £3.50.

Make out rike.

The shadow of lose over every twist and turn of the class struggle.

The Tories and ers remember what happened with mingled sense of fear and relief. For workers engaged in current battles against Tory attempts at wage regulation and ficance of those distant times ficance lessened with the passing of the years.

This is nol lo say that we look at 1926 to learn lessons' in some simple, mechanical way. We recall those times because the course and outcome of the General Strike decisively affected the balance of class forces and the whole experience of social conflict i since then.

his latest version of the story is written by a liberal journalist, and adds some of its predecessors much teresting information about the attitudes and activities of the ruling class, using material be found particularly the recently-published diaries and memoirs of Tom ones. was deputy secretary the Cabinet, and of I. C. C. Davidson, who was a close adviser of Prime Minister Baldwin.

Farman provides fluent and well-written account of the political background and Tune chief negotiations that led to millions of workers striking to support the miners, who Ware threatened with wagecuts and longer working hours.

about the activities of trade union and strike-breaking organizaTONS during the and details of the capitulation of TAP traae union leaders in the face of the Tory onslaught and the increasing strength of their own rank and file.

Farman's account of these events serves to bring out the determination of the ruling class to have a clear and open confrontation with the trade union movement in 1926.

The British capitalist class was faced with the rapid the main industries which its fortunes had previously been based, and without a decisive defeat of the working class would have been unable to Creae ine conditions for its own survival.

Thus the moderation and inactivity of the Tory government that took office at the end of 1924, there lay a determination to face and defeat the working class in a confrontation were evervoody understood what was at stake.

In July 1925, the Cabinet felt, according to its Permanent Secretary, that 'the present moment' was badly chosen for the fight, though the conditions would more favourable nine months hence'. Thus on 'Red Friday', the unions forced the government to continue temporarily to subsidize the wagers of the miners.

During the negotiations, however, Baldwin had said, according to the miners' leaders: 'All the workers in this country have got to face a Above: Recruiting strike-breaker! After 'Red Friday' he systematica reduction in wages to help put industry on its feet.' In the months that followed Red Friday, the Tories prepared systematically to make sure that this policy would be put into effect. Already in August, the ultra-right wing Home Secretary Joynson-Hicks was outlining the issues as he saw them:

'Sooner or later this yucstion has got to be fought out by the people of the land. Is England to be governed by parliament and the Cabinet or by a handful of trade union leaders?' Beneath these ideological preparations, the Tories were preparing secret strike-breaking machinery to ensure they were ready for the confrontation when it came. Among other steps, they arrested and imprisoned most of the Communist Party leaders, and supported the allegedly independent 'Organization for the Maintenance of Supplies' (OMS), which recruited strikebreakers.

These developments serve well to illustrate the relations between the Tory Cabinet and the capitalist class. While the people who join the administrations of the capitalist parties are not always those who run the big businesses that directly exploit the labour of the working class, in a very real sense these governments constitute the executive committee of the bourgeoisie.

When in 1923 Davidson publicly held the sinecure of Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster, he was in fact Chief Commissioner in charge of on May 3, 1926. Right: Baldwin. prepared for the showdown. building an emergency organization to deal with the expected strike, and he was paid for this directly from Tory Party funds.

Later on, although the Cabinet at times rebuked the wilder claims of the coal-owners, it acted, according to Tom Jones, with them as 'friends jointly exploring a situation' Even Beatrice Webb became convinced that the Tories acted as 'parliamentary agents of the coal-owners'. In the same way that Marx described the capitalist government of the 1840s agreeing to the reduction of working hours in cotton mills as an action on behalf of the capitalist class as whole rather than of one individual or section, so also the Tories in the 1920s acted in ways of which individual employers might disapprove, but which nevertheless served the interests of them all.

By rallying the employers, by making it clear that no compromise was possible because the whole future of the social system was at stake, the Tories acted as general agents for the employers' attack on the working class. When the struggle was over, the Tories also held back from the complete extinction of trade unionism that some bosses favoured.

Baldwin explained the necessity of maintaining 'organizations which could speak for and bind the parties on both sides' • In other words, the trade union bureaucracy is a necessary complement to big business in the reinforcement of modern capitalism.

CONTINUED TOMORROW

Tuesday PAGE graphed and presented in restrained, sympathetic fashion and showing everything from the individual point of view, on a crudely emotional level.

There is no doubt that in one sense Ben is a courageous man, and means very well by the world he lives in. There is no doubt • his wife and children suffer.

But this is a dangerously one-sided assessment of situation which, in Northern Ireland and this country, is nothing more nor less than the most bitter and historically far-reaching class warfare.

Individuals, their good intentions and their concerns, in this sense, can be used merely especially where potent propa- calculated distraction, ganda is concerned, to turn us all away from the real issues and from a proper understanding with which to fight all those who wish to sustain the fiction that it is not the Tory government and its lackeys in Ireland who are at the centre of the troubles, but the IRA and other so-called 'criminals' who are to 'destroy law and ordero"t Tom Clarke's sharp little half-