POWELL

ISM OR NATIONALISM ?' and the speakers will be Bill Turner and Terry Lidale for the London Division of the ILP, opposing Philip Maxwell for the National Front.

'This is the first time since before the war that two such diametrically opposed viewpoints of the left and right have met in open debate, and we anticipate a most lively Comment on this document almoct cunarAnic Sufficient to note that it condemns those who have fought to drive the National Front and similar bodies off the street as organized hooligans.

Instead of warning of the danger from this right-wing movement, it tries to reduce the whole question to a 'teachWe would like to ask, who is 'teaching' whom ?

What does the ILP propose to learn from the National Front?

And what happens if the views of the National Front should happen to prevail when everybody •has liberally 'seen both sides'?

The leaflet does not even indicate clearly where the ILP was that "The main speaker of ANGLINE uvv stands on the question of the evening, Mr Tariq. Ali, racialism—presumably it might who would doubtlessly [sic] prejudice the 'debate' if either have enhanced the intellectual side were to publicise their flavour of the debate has own position in advance!

Hence we have good old not stated).

Fabian do-gooding gone rancid. However, in his letter, he To advocate fair play for also expressed the view that fascists of the National Front "to debate with a fascist variety is to completely would be unacceptable anyabrogate every principle. There way". (Despite my informing can be no discussion, no him that a National Front rep'debate', least of all a 'teach- resentative would be opposing in' with these enemies of the the motion.) The late timing working class. of this letter prevents a subThe ILP appears here al- stitute of equal calibre [!]' NEW TALENTS most as a caricature, but the move to cosy discussions with Powellites is not confined to the ILP.

The University of Leicester Union had to cancel on October 15 a debate that had been advertised for the following day.

The inevitable Tariq Ali was billed to speak alongside one Tim Smith in support of the motion "This house considers Socialist Internationalism to be a necessary and endemic policy of the Twentieth Century.

Opposing the motion were to have been Prince Michael Grousinski, right - wing monarchist, and John Tyndall of the National Front.

The cancellation notice posted in the University Union on the eve of the debate gives three reasons for the cancellation.

Many students, quite correctly, were hostile to the Union's providing a platform for Tyndall.

The University security officer refused to guarantee the safety of Tyndall and Grousinski.

• Cancellation The most important reason for the cancellation, however, flown to Canada (the reason my level of a debate with the arch-enemies of the working class.

It is, of course, absolutely correct for Ali to refuse to debate with Tyndall, and this is to his credit.

There can be no discussion with such people.

Unlike the Leicester University Debates Committee, ho think that 'a point of should be allowed a hearing and that 'A debate should be the very time when the ideal of the right to speak is freely granted' rants Should be extended to fascist and racialist enemies of the working class, and that where possible they should be prevented from expounding their views.

Instead of disarming the working class in this way and reducing a struggle with fascism to the level of a

Racialist

The basic principled difference between Foot's position and ours is that he is prepared to discuss with Powell, while we do not consider discussion permissible with a man whose racialist policies are opening the door to fascism.

If the fight against Powellism is a life-and-death question, then every effort must be made to prepare in a principled way for this type of Foot's attitude to the question whether or not to interview Powell is steeped in precisely the same liberalism as the London ILP and the Leicester University Union.

If the question were simply one of Foot and Powell as two individuals, the matter might have ended there. ordinated to the fight for principled revolutionary politics.

That is why Foot's speculation about debates and interviews with Powell or with working-class Powellites is entirely frivolous. The Socialist Labour League will participate in no such debates.

Powellism will not be defeated in the course of debate.

Those who think this are victims of the same middle-class illusions which sustain the 'peaceful road to socialism'.

In the case of the revisionists and 'lefts' who are now displaying such eagerness to debate and interview the heroes of the right, their abdication of principles must be fought to a finish in the process of building a revolutionary leadership in the working class.

Only such a leadership can defeat Powell.