TOGETHER

can defeat the Tory H-bomb Government enough. Each year sees a bigger, better Aldermaston, dominated by youth. But we are no nearer to getting rid of the bomb.

Despite all the demonstrations, despite the logic of the unilateralist case, the government is continuing its suicidal policies. Clearly, something more is needed.

It was the desire to do more that led to the formation of the Committee of 100. Reacting against the complacent respectability of the CND leadership hundreds of young people responded to the call for Direct Action.

Six of their leaders are now in gaol, serving vicious sentences imposed on them by the State. At their Parliament Square sit-down on March 24, 1,172 of them were arrested. Everyone must admire their courage.

But will it get rid of the bomb? The experience of the December 9 demonstration at Wethersfield, Brize Norton and other bases showed many people that when they actively opposed the government they came up against a huge repressive apparatus — police violence, searches, gaol sentences, and a full-scale campaign of intimidation-and not a government of 'reasonable' men, open to 'public pressure' And the government that used these methods is allied to Salazar, Franco, de Gaulle and Adenauer and his government of pro-Nazis.

The spread of nuclear weapons to these 'allies' is imminent and can only be prevented by a vigorous struggle against our own nuclear government, of the sort which will inspire the working class of Europe to do the same.

A government with an arms budget of £1,721 million is not going to be persuaded by peaceby Jack Gale ful demonstrations of whatever type. We have to get rid of it. Many unilateralists are beginning to see this. The Tory government which spends these millions on armaments is the same government which imposes a wage pause on the working class and middle class, shortly after granting £83 million in concessions to surtax payers, that turns families homeless into the London streets in the interests of landlords and property speculators; that introduces immigration control; that calls for more production while turning hundreds of miners, railwaymen and engineers out of their jobs.

Are these the acts of a government motivated by "reason' and the 'interests of the people'? Or of a government run on behalf of landlords, property owners, speculators and profiteers (including those who make profits out of armaments)?

In fighting the H-bomb you are fighting the policies of this government. So are workers who demand wage increase. In recent months this has included 34 million engineers; 800,000 railwaymen; 560,000 miners; 160,000 Post Office workers; 146,000 Civil Servants; 70,000 ock workers; 60,000 explain it to others.

Some are already doing this. During the recent one-day strikes of engineers some unilateralists — for instance the North-East Committee of 100 and the Hull University CNDissued leaflets to the strikers linking the fight against the wage pause with the fight against the bomb.

This is absolutely on the right lines. Unilateralists must link up with the working class in this way, must tie up the campaign against the bomb with struggles over wages, pit closures, rents and colonialism.

They must work to get a response inside the working class organisations by turning their activity towards what is going on inside the working class movement. Otherwise, they are doomed to impotence.

When the Campaign is cut off from other real struggles there is a tendency to seek short cuts. This results in a pull away from unilateralism.

Leading this tendency is the Communist Party which rapidly moving back to the position it held prior to 1 959, when it condemned unilat eralism as sectarian.

The Communist Party is now concentrating its efforts on gaining a Summit meeting and an agreement on tests. has ceased to campaig 1 for un latepeace, but preparing for war.

In September 1960, members of the Communist Party stood at London Airport with banners saying 'Good Luck, Mac', as Macmillan flew to America to speak at the United Nations.

What happened? Macmillan spoke about peace-and two months later announced that during that same trip he had arranged for the Polaris to come to the Clyde.

Therefore, before anyone pins his hopes on any future Summit, he should look at the past record. It is the job of socialists to blow away the smoke-screens laid down by capitalist politicians, not to add to the confusion.

This confusion is increased by the 'positive neutralists' The notion that Britain could become 'neutral' ignores the harsh realities of the forces in the world.

For Britain to be wrenched out of the Western Alliance would unbalance the whole strategy of American-European militarism.

It would be a major breakthrough against imperialism and could take place only as a result of a huge social upheaval here and as part of a rapidly changing situation internationally. Such a development would be 'positive', certainly, but hardly 'neutral'.

The Socialist Labour League stresses the international and class aspects of the struggle against war. The basic divisions in the world are not national, but class divisions.

We oppose the ultra-patriotism of the 'Daily Worker, its anti - Germanism, its anti-Americanism and its ridiculous air of outraged moral virtue because American sailors are carrying on with British girls.

Of course, we oppose German troops and American bases in Britain, but because they are a part of international capitalist preparations for war, not because they are German or American.

The German and American working class are our allies in preventing war, and the task of socialists is to knock down the national barriers that prevent us from forging that alliance.

It is because of this international, class attitude to war, that we have always insisted on a turn towards the organised working • class in the trade unions and Labour Party.

That is why we were the first to put down a unilateralist resolution at a Labour Party Conference (at Brighton in 1957 — calling for an international campaign) and the first to demand industrial action against the bomb ('Black the H-Bomb and Rocket Bases' 1958).

But what about the Blackpool Labour Party Conference? Doesn't the reversal of the previous year's unilateralist victory show that it is useless to pay any attention to the Labour Party?

Some people certainly think this and have begun to advocate independent CND candidates in elections.

Such action only cuts off unilateralism from what is really happening. All the recent by-elections show a swing against the Tories, a : esentment the massive "Yes' vote in last Sunday's referendum, de Gaulle stands equipped with dictatorial powers formally endorsed by popular vote. The plebiscitary character of his regime becomes clearer from his broadcast declarations: contempt for parliament, for the old parties, even for his own ministers, is clear from his actions.

Now more than ever the fate of French society hangs on the life of one man: before it the abyss gapes wider than ever.

The vote for de Gaulle does not mean a secure regime. It represents the clinging together of frightened people clutching at a necessarily temporary salvation.

Of course, the vote was nominally for the Algerian settlement and it was on this plausible plea that the followers of Mollet and Thorez were induced to vote 'Yes'.

But the question of self-determination for Algeria is no matter for decision by the French electors. That alone ought to have determined a at the pay pause, at the fear of unemployment, a disgust at the class privilege that is at the roots of Toryism.

It is possible to build up a strong anti- Tory movement that could bring down this H-bomb government. Unilateralists must be a part of this, instead of cutting themselves off by "protest' candidatures.

Gaitskell's victory at the 1961 Conference shows how essential it is for unilateralists to fight even harder in the Labour Party, to penetrate more deeply into the working class movement-and to realise what that implies.

The political struggles inside Labour Party reflect the decisive problems for capitalism — who shall own the means of production, and whether capitalism will be allowed to start a third World War. No one can fight seriously on these questions except by taking part in the struggles in the Labour Party.

This is a hard struggle. The right wing is backed up by all the brain-washing facilities of capitalism, and Transport House itself has a powerful machine.

But there is a deep-going contradiction inside the Labour Party, between its roots in the working class and the nature of its leadership.

The right-wing leaders carry into the movement ideas that are in the interests of capitalism —no more nationalization, keep the H-bomb.

But the Labour Party is based on the trades unions, and evokes a deep loyalty from workers, who, as they move into action, gain their political experiences from their organizations - that is, from the trades unions and the Labour Party itself.

The ranks of these organizations, despite their leadership, continually throw up demands of fundamental concern to the working class — nationalization "No' vote by the working class parties, quite apart from the fact that to vote otherwise represented an endorsement for de Gaulle.

These parties — including the Communist Party-had already become supports for de Gaulle. Their betrayal has simply gone a stage further.

The relatively large number of 'Noes', abstentions and spoiled papers means that there are many on the left who understood the issues.

The main body of the working class, bewildered by their 'leaders', see in the 'Yes' their illusory desire for peace in Algeria and a quiet life. They have been disarmed by these leaders once again.

Yet it is clear that de Gaulle cannot realise the hopes of the working people. As an agent of French capitalism he is bound to oppose their demands, to strengthen the repressive forces aligned against them and prepare for the coming showdown.

On their side, the task of preparation will never be undertaken by the Social Democrats or the Stalinists.

and opposition to war.

The split in the Labour Party can never be healed. The right wing is an ally of capitalism, acting as a false opposition, holding back and miseducating the working class. It is because of this that capitalism has a stake in preserving the right wing as the leadership of the Labour Party. That is why the unilateralist victory in 1960 was not only a defeat for Gaitskell but a threat to capitalism.

That is why that victory should have been the beginning of a much sharper fight in the Party. It could only have been consolidated by driving the right wing out. Anything short of that was bound to lead to a reversal the following year. The Socialist Labour League said this at the time ('After Scarborough, the Battle Begins').

But the leadership of the left in the Labour Party, Michael Foot, 'Tribune' and VFS, were incapable of fighting to a finish. While the right organized ruthlessly, these 'leaders' did nothing.

They did not organize a single big meeting or campaign during that whole crucial year. Even when Foot and four others were kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party, they still did nothing. They gave no leadership whatsoever.

But the failure of the 'left' is not an argument for staying out of the Labour Party. On the contrary, it is an argument for getting in, in a much more organized and class conscious way. And it is positive proof that the fight against the bomb and against the right wing cannot be led by a 'Tribune'-VFStype leadership.

Fortunately there are stronger forces around. As the 1962 Aldermaston takes place, the second National Conference of the Labour Party Young Socialists meets. THE friends of the FLN are - meanwhile busily seeking to present the Evian agreement as a capitulation of French imperialism and as no barrier to the social revolution in Algeria.

They do this, of course, as blind partisans of the FLN leadership and by a favourable interpretation of the agreement made with de Gaulle.

The fact that the Sahara will be considered as part of the Algerian state is made to seem much more important than the continued stranglehold of the oil companies over the petroleum resources, including the upholding of France's privileged position with respect to them.

The status of the European inhabitants of Algeria is less important, in considering the nature of the settlement, than the question of property rights. In fact, the property rights of French capital are fully protected.

The only kind of agrarian reform which will be possible is one in which European estates will be re-purchased by the Algerian state. The latter, if it embarks on agrarian reform, will only be able to do so by calling The agenda for that conference contains 12 unilateralist resolutions (against three pro-Gaitskell ones) plus a demand to send messages of solidarity to the Aldermaston marchers and to the six imprisoned leaders of the Committee of 100.

It also contains 10 resolutions demanding withdrawal from all military alliances, five opposing any re-introduction of conscription, 13 against the immigration bill, four in favour of more nationalization and three against the pay pause.

These young people flocking into the Labour movement in large numbers, and the thousands of trade unionists moving into conflict with the employers and the government, constitute a force which can break the grip of the Tories.

Unilateralists have now got to face the question: what must be done to make their protest effective? The marches and demonstrations are growing— but so is the number of H-bombs.

To some unilateralists the demonstrations have already become an end in themselves —an expression of personal conviction—while the real object of getting rid of the bomb recedes into an unattainable future.

The only way to prevent this is to to tie unilateralism to the real, living forces of the working class. There is no other way. Macmillan, Kennedy and Khrushcher will not do it for us. The Tories will not be converted by our logic and devotion. Mr. Gaitskell will not be won over by our self-sacrifice.

Those people who try to keep the movement 'out of po itics' are an obstacle to getting I id of the bomb.

La ge hree for French economic aid vided for in the agreement.

The most that can be expected, therefore, is a purely token redistribution of land with a few former landowners being paid handsome indemnities.

Such evident compromises are, by a process of political contortion, being made to appear as a great conquest by the Algerian revolution.

According to a writer in the Belgian paper 'La Gauche', all the important concessions have been made by France and all the real gains have been made by the Algerians. What is left to France are purely prestige satisfactions! The naval base at Mers-El-Kebir and which is to remain in French hands for 15 years, for example?

In fact, of course, such an agreement cannot be judged only from its words, as other friends of the FLN, with greater misgivings, are aware.

The Pabloite journal, 'La Verite des Travailleurs, (March 1962), while claiming 'a great victory for the Algerian Revolution' goes on to say, 'of course, it is a compromise peace, many elements of which constitute a menace for the development of the Algerian revolution' Where will the menace come from? 'Not only from the OAS and its gangster methods, but also from the innumerable manoeuvres of the agents of capitalism and of the French government like those in many other former French colonies in Africa' The imagination of the writer in 'La Gauche' evidently did not extend as far as this.

Nevertheless, both of these papers share illusions in the revolutionary character of the FLN leadership.

The Pabloites, so long the counsellors of the FLN, have decided that the FLN leadership is neither 'Marxist-revolutionary' nor bourgeois.

It is representative of a complex combination between different Algerian social classes of which the poor peasantry is the dominant part associated with the intellectual and commercial bourgeoisie, the proletarian kernels in the big cities and the proletarian emigrants in France'.

The fact that the poor peasantry is the most numerous section of the population does not make it in any sense "dominant either in social weight or in the leadership.

The question of the nature of the leadership is, in effect, skated over.

What is clear is that the Pabloites are aware that this leadership could turn what they call a compromise' into a betrayal. Imperialism will oppose the development of a socialist Algeria. They ask, then, will it receive support from a fraction of the FLN? 'That is an eventuality which cannot be neglected, let us say that is it possible. But the most probable perspective is to see the majority of the FLN set out unreservedly on the socialist road.' The supporters of the FLN, who claim to be Marxists, have tied themselves to an unstable, petty bourgeois type of colonial national leadership, which seeks not to lead, but to manipulate and dominate the poor peasant and worker masses.

If there is one thing which the Evian agreements demonstrate to the full, it is that such a leadership cannot carry forward the struggle against imperialism and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as the basis for 'working class power' in Algeria.