In the last issue of the Mole we saw the social and political conditions that caused the birth and early rise of the Minority Movement. In addition we described the type of union leadership which the Movement had to fight against. The union leaders soon showed that they were prepared to use any means against the growth of the Movement.
The Attack on the Minority Movement The first major clash between the Minority Movement and the union leaders came in the AEU. Here, in complete breach of the Union's constitution, the Executive tried to prevent branches using funds they had collected in order to affiliate to the Movement. When this action was declared unconstitutional by the final court of appeal, the Executive then tried to change the union rules to legalise its actions retrospectively. This was too much for the Rules Revision Conference to stomach, however, and the Executive was defeated.
This incident in itself was enough, but it was only a foretaste of the type of methods which could be used in less democratic unions. A good example of the type of manoeuvre carried on is the case of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union.
In this Union the Minority Movement gained its first support in the London Metro branch. Here it published a duplicated paper, London Boot and Shoe Worker. This called for a minimum wage of E3 10. O., a 44-hour week, the establishment of factory shop committees, the abolition of arbitration, the adjustment of the wage for union officials to that of average shoe workers' pay, and the ultimate acquisition of the shoe industry by the workers. Within a year of the London group of the Movement being set up, groups were active in Leicester, Northampton, Kettering, Stafford, and Kilmarnock, and a Minority Movement slate was put forward for the National Executive. Seeing the growth of this threat to their entrenched position, the Union leaders, headed by Union President E. L. Poulton, decided to repress the Movement. Poulton instructed the President of the London Metro branch to charge the Movement's leader in the branch, G. W. Chandler, with acting contrary to the provisions of the Union. When Chandler's support in London proved too great for this to be done, Poulton asked the Annual Conference for powers to act over the heads of union branches. The Executive then fined Chandler and expelled him from the Union on his refusal to pay. The Executive then sent out a circular prohibiting members of the Communist Party or the Minority Movement from holding Union office. By these "moderate", "democratic" measures, the Executive succeeded in destroying the power of the Movement in the Union.
The Struggle in the Trades Councils In the 1920s, just as now, one of the main problems facing industrial militants was their isolation from each other. For this reason Trades Councils, which allowed at least militants in the same area to meet regularly, were of great importance in the labour movement. The TUC, realising that the Councils could become a focus for rank-and-file discontent, tried to reduce them to nothing more than talking-shops. Instead of being local centres for coordinating trade union work, the TUC insisted that the Councils should merely "...act through their secretaries as labour correspondents for the TUC General Council, and forward to the same regular reports of their local proceedings, together with such general information regarding movements among the organised workers as may be of use to the Council." Confined merely to this talking role, the Trades Councils were of little use. Therefore the Minority Movement's attempt to turn them into real "Councils of the working class" met with a ready response among militant workers. By March 1926, 50 Trades Councils, including London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Coventry and Sheffield, sent delegates to the Movement conference.
The importance of the Trades Councils to the TUC was considerable, for if the Minority Movement had succeeded in gaining a real hold in them, then the Councils could provide a real power base from which it would be possible to challenge the TUC leaders. What might have happened was seen on a small scale during the General Strike. Then Minority Movementcontrolled Councils formed themselves into "Councils of Action" in order to organise mass picketing, protection against police attacks, etc. Seeing a danger to its entrenched power, the TUC acted against the Minority Movement in the Trades Councils almost as soon as it began to gain support there. Its first action was the fairly mild one of sending out a circular against the Movement, which, since the Minority Movement's policy in the Trades Councils met a real need, had little effect. The TUC therefore decided to act against the Movement with dictatorial methods.
The first move by the TUC in this new campaign was to refuse to recognise Trades Councils which were in any way associated with the Minority Movement. They did this by obliging all Councils to sign a form declaring "...that this Trades Council is not affiliated to the Minority Movement, nor does it receive affiliations from any branch of that organisation, and that, as a body, it is not associated in any way with the Minority Movement." In order to ensure that there was no sidestepping the circular, every kind of local manoeuvre was carried on. For example, in London a card vote was introduced with delegates selected at district level, so as to ensure that delegates reflected the policy of the union leaders and not that of the local branches. This having been achieved, Communist Party members were then barred from standing for office and local Trades Councils which continued to elect Communist delegates were expelled. This manoeuvring by TUC turned the London Trades Council, for example, from a militant organisation performing a real function in linking up working class struggles, into an extremely reactionary organisation which even refused to take part in the Committee welcoming the South Wales Hunger Marchers. Compared to this type of activity by the TUC, the C.P. 's ballot-rigging in the ETU seems a positive model of democracy! The closest to this method of manipulation we have seen in recent years was "Carron's law" in the AEU, and any engineering militant knows just how "moderate" Carron was.
The Communist Party The main target of attack by the union leaders was the Communist Party. This was the core and provided the leadership of the Movement. Despite the violent attacks of the official union leaders, the Party succeeded in maintaining the Minority Movement even after the great defeat of the working class during the General Strike. However, despite this apparent success by 1926, the C.P. was no longer the same type of organisation as it had been in the early 1920s.
When the British C.P. was founded in 1920, the working class movement was dominated by reactions to the Russian Revolution. For the ruling class, the prospect of a revolution in Britain was the ultimate horror. For the militant workers, on the other hand, the Russian Revolution was the greatest inspiration possible and led to the kind of uncritical allegiance described later by Harry Pollitt when he said that, When the news of the Russian Revolution on November 7th 1917 came through ... all 1 knew was that the workers had conquered, were the top dogs somewhere in the world. That was enough for me. These were the lads and lassies must support through thick and thin. And don't drop dead with fright when I also say that for me these same people could never do, nor ever can do, any wrong against the working class." Although perhaps understandable, nevertheless this type of uncritical emotional support led ultimately to the collapse of the C.P. into supporting the reactionary policies of Stalin. However, these dangers did not appear at once and at first the interest in, and willingness to learn from, the Russian Revolution had an enormously good effect on the young Communist Party.
When the C.P. was founded, the communist movement was dominated by Lenin and Trotsky Lenin had built up the Bolshevik Party which had made the Russian Revolution possible, while Trotsky had planned and actually carried out the Revolution. The policy of these men was summed up in a famous statement of Trotsky's that "The working class has nothing but itself and its Party". What this policy meant in practice was that the Communist Party had to rely on itself and must in no way trust the actions and pretended good wishes of the ruling class. It also meant that there was no substitute for the slow work of building a revolutionary organisation. In Russia, it had taken twenty years to create such a revolutionary party. Lenin and Trotsky hoped that by learning from the mistakes and successes of the Russian Communist Party the new Parties, such as the British one, could complete the process in a far shorter period of time. Initially events seemed to be proving them correct. For example, the British Communists had at first been dominated by sectarian ideas such as a refusal to work in the trade unions, a failure to work around tactories, a failure to work with Labour Party members, and so on. Lenin's famous book, Left Wing Communism-An Infantile Disorder, was largely devoted to attacking such stupidities, which only had the effect of cutting the Communists off from the working class. This pamphlet led to a great improvement in the work and policy of the early Communists.
The reaction of the right-wing union leaders to the growth of the C.P. was even more hysterical than its reaction to the formation of the Minority Movement. Miners' leader Frank Hodges, for example, claimed that C.P. members were "...the intellectual slaves of Moscow, unthinking, unheeding, accepting decrees and decisions without criticism or comment, taking orders from the Asiatic mind, taking the judgement of middle-class Russia-the residue of the old regime-not even the judgements of the plain Russian people but the dictates and decrees of the same type of intellectuals despised in this country."
This was aimed against people like Tom Mann who had a 40-year record of work in the labour movement!! This fear of the C.P. reflected the fact that the union leaders were more concerned to keep their own members "in order" than they were in defeating the employers and government. This aim is clearly expressed in J. H. Thomas's speech on the day after the General Strike was called off. He said:
"What I feared most about this strike more than anything else was this-if by any chance it should have got out of the hands of those who would be able to exercise some control, every sane man knows what would have happened. I thank God it never did."
The General Strike As Thomas was making this speech in the comfort of the House of Commons, millions of British workers were suffering disillusionment and humiliation. Nine days earlier the TUC had called out over a million men in a General Strike in support of the miners. The British working class had responded to the call with a solidarity that had amazed even its most radical leaders. On the railways not a train moved. In the docks not a ship was unloaded, and in the mines not a shovelful of coal was touched. In mines throughout the country everything from milk and food supplies to babysitting for men on picket duty was arranged by local union organisations. In effect, there were two powers in the countrythe government, which was based on the physical power of the police and the army, and the power of the working class, which rested on the millions of trade unionists who had demonstrated their loyalty to the ideal of working class solidarity. The aim of the government was simple-to humiliate the miners by reducing their wages, increasing their working hours and worsening their conditions. The aim of the strikers was also clear-to protect the miners and to prevent the government breaking the effective power of the trade union movement. In this struggle the physical power was on the side of the working class. No government, even the most brutal, can defeat a united working class numbered in millions. Yet despite its enormous strength, by the time J. H. Thomas made his speech, the working class had been defeated. Why?
Reasons for the Defeat of the General Strike The defeat was certainly not due to any lack of solidarity on the part of the working class. The strength of the strike was amazing and the militancy far from the "Police v. strikers football matches" we are taught about at school. In fact there were riots in Canning Town, Poplar, Old Kent Road, Preston, Hull, Middlesborough, Doncaster and Edinburgh, among other places. In Glasgow buses were overturned, troops were sent into Hull, and warships were anchored in the Thames, Humber and Tyne. In all, over 3,100 people were arrested for incitement to sedition and violence. Neither was it the case that none of the strikers saw the strike as a political act. One Trades Council reported that the strike "was regarded as a straight fight between the TUC and the government" 'and was "a fine political weapon for Labour". Ellen Wilkinson related that a meeting cheered for many minutes when a miner said: "If the British Constitution makes a man work underground for less than £2 a week, it is about time that that Constitution was challenged." Another writer quotes an ILP man from the North as saying to him: "Man, John, there's never been anything like it. If the blighters o' leaders dinna let us down we'll hae the Capitalists crawlin' on their bellies in a week. Oh, boy, it's the revolution at last!" This last view was echoed by many foreign journalists who poured into the In fact the reason for the failure of the General Strike was that the union leaders were terrified of their own power. It was 1919 all over again.
Even before the strike had begun, the trade union leaders had shown their half-hearted attitude by refusing to organise supplies for pickets, defence squads against the police, etc. While the government made arrangements for printing its own newspaper, brought in troops to run buses and trains, and recruited thousands of students as scabs, the TUC leaders sat in Memorial Hall and sang the Red Flag. While Churchill called on the government to "act hard and fast", the TUC General Council solemnly declared that it did not challenge the constitu tion. Right from the beginning of the strike the TUC tried to call it off. Foremost among those trying to get the strike stopped was our old friend J. H. Thomas. He made contact with of all things, the Liberal Party on the second day of the strike, and finished up by accepting the government's demand for "unconditional surrender" , and he called on the Prime Minister to prevent "guerrilla warfare".
The Result of the Defeat of the General Strike The immediate outcome of the ending of the strike was a tremendous destruction of the fighting spirit of the working class and the creation of a bitterness which lasted for at least twenty years. For the nine days of the strike, towns had been ruled by Strike Committees, red flags had flown, and the working class had tasted its own power. After the strike, millions of trade unionists found that they had to return to work on humiliating conditions For example: over 200,000 railwaymen were shut out of work; in Brighton, busmen, tram waymen and printers were forced to leave their unions, while the miners were left to fight on for six months. During this time they suffered appalling hardships and were forced to go back on worse terms than the mineowners had originally offered.
As for the government and the industrialists, they fully realised the extent of their victory The government's newspaper, The British Gazette, summed up their feeling in its headline "Surrender Received by Premier", and The Daily Mail trumpeted, "Surrender of the Revo lutionaries ... Revolution Routed." The capita list class celebrated its victory by breaking off diplomatic contact with the workers' state in Russia and by passing the notorious 1927 Trades Disputes and Trade Union Act. This savagely restricted rights of picketing, forbade civil servants to join trade unions affiliated to the TUC, abolished the contracting-out levy to the Labour Party and made sympathy strikes illegal. And what did our "moderate" trade union leaders have to say? As usual, Thomas put it most clearly when he said, I have never disguised that in a challenge to the Constitution, God help us unless the Government won."
The Minority Movement and the General Strike
In 1919 and 1926 we can see the same pattern repeated -a great upsurge of the working class leading to a situation where it is clear that the movement can only go in one of two directions. Either to bringing down the government and establisbing a government based on working class power, or backward to a tremendous defeat for the working class. There was no other purely trade union choice. What is also common to these situations is that in both the trade union leaders backed down and as a result the working class was defeated.
It is fairly easy to see why this occurred in both situations; it is because for years beforehand these union leaders had been telling the working class that socialism could be achieved through Parliament and you cannot simply turn round and suddenly say, "We have said for twenty years that socialism could be achieved peacefully, but now we see we're wrong and the working class must achieve power by revolution." On the contrary, if you do this, people won't act but will just be confused. To convince the working class that something as drastic as a revolution is necessary, at least two things must occur: firstly the working class must see with its own eyes that the government and employers are prepared to use force to protect their property and privileges, and secondly the working class must for years beforehand have heard the arguments in favour of revolution. The union leaders were committed to reformism; they could not tell millions of trade unionists on strike that they must carry out a revolution, even if they had desired it-which of course they didn't. If they had been committed to revolution, they would have had to argue and prepare the working class for it for years beforehand. (The position was exactly like that of Germany a few years later, when politicians who had said for years that violence was unnecessary to achieve socialism could not turn round and tell the working class it was necessary to resist Hitler by force.)
The Communist Party on the other hand was supposedly a revolutionary organisation, so we must ask, "What was its policy during the strike?"
The Limits of the Minority Movement As we have seen, during its early history the Communist Party had been guided by Lenin and Trotsky's idea that the working class could only rely on itself and its party. If this policy had been applied in 1926, the difference in the outcome of the General Strike could have been enormous. In this type of great upheaval, a Party with a correct policy and a firm base in the trade unions can have an influence out of all The Years of the Great Test, 1926-39: edited by Frank MacManus. The Mercier. Press 1967.
Originally delivered in 1962 as part of a series of radio talks, this book contains a number of essays on the political, social, economic and cultural development of Ireland between the years 1926 and 1939. These years are chosen as representing significant landmarks in the history of the Free State. 1926 was the year Fianna Fail was founded. Unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade Sinn Fein to depart from its policy of boycotting the Free State Dail, De Valera founded a new Party. He was to enter the Dail a year later and form a government (succeeding Cosgrave's Cumann na n'Gaedheal) in 1932. 1939 saw the successful exclusion of the Free State from the war. Southern Ireland's neutrality was made possible by the withdrawal of Britain's naval bases from Free State territory the year before.
Academic Free Staters The book is written mainly by academics. Predictably-as a series of talks for the national radio—the picture it draws is one favourable to the Free State, or at least to the legitimacy of that state, as the inheritor of the republican tradition. Collins' claim that the Treaty gave not Freedom but the means to achieve Freedom seems to be vindicated if one were to take this book for one's gospel. 1926-39 saw the transformation of the Free State from holding an uncertain ambiguous status in relation to the British Crown, to an independent entity with the Crown virtually removed from the Constitution, the groundwork prepared for the declaration of the Republic after the war, and a state able to conduct its own foreign policy. The contributors set out to weigh up the achieve ments of the Free State pragmatically, affording a bogus air of academic impartiality.
Anti-Marxist Approach The approach is of course far from Marxist and what the book does not deal with are the real problems facing the working class in this period, the actual balance sheet of these years for the class. The end result of course is that a regretful eye is cast in passing at continuing emigration, unemployment and the repressive measures used first by Cumann na n'Gaedheal after the Civil War and later by De Valera after a little equivoproportion to its size. I he Communist Party by 1926 had a firm base in the unions, in the shape of the Minority Movement, but its policies were no longer those of a revolutionary Party. They were the policies thrust on the foreign Communist Parties by Stalin, and by 1926 Stalin was trying to do a deal with the left wing of the TUC. This meant that the Communist Party had to adopt an attitude of not criticising "left wing" leaders. To see the difference that this meant to the policy of the C.P., consider the following comment on the subject of a General Strike in the Workers Weekly of July 24th 1924.
Immediately a section of workers comes out on strike, mass demonstrations must be organised by the Councils of Action in conjunc tion with the strike committees of particular unions. If the miners come out there must be mass demonstrations to the docks and railway centres, where the workers should be told to form section and job committees and prepare for action if official action is not taken.
Heré we have a policy of militant action with a warning that the official leaders cannot be relied upon. However, by late 1925 Stalin was negotiating, in the shape of the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee, with trade union leaders such as Cook and Purcell, and as far as he was concerned, this meant that the British Communist Party must be careful not to FAMON DE VALERA book can then conclude with the words, "Yet in ordinary daily life the people then were much better off than we tend to think. In the practical business of surviving, in developing new communities abroad, in assisting the sick and the poor, also in avoiding extreme disparities in social relationships, that generation did not do too badly. It was certainly a good deal less spoilt than the present one." The survival of the offend these men. Instead of pointing out that the TUC could not be relied upon, the Workers Weekly began to speak of "good proletarian leaders like Swales, Hicks, Cook and Purcell." And "this proletarian leadership and the proletarian solidarity it was capable of organising and demonstrating was the really big thing that came out of the struggle." (The "good proleta rians" referred to all agreed to the government's terms of unconditional surrender at the end of the General Strike!). By spreading this type of confusion as to the nature of the TUC leaders, the C.P. helped to open the way for the calling off of the strike. Of course even if the C.P. had continued to organise and agitate in the way it had originally, there is no guarantee that it would have been successful, but its actual course of creating false illusions in the "left" trade union leaders was foredoomed to failure.
The second reason for the failure of the General Strike was that a loose organisation such as the Minority Movement is not sufficient to carry out a revolution. Revolution demands tremendous discipline and organisation and this can only come in a revolutionary party in which people are agreed on politics and not in a simple grouping of trade unionists, no matter how militant. Until the working class see the need to join a revolutionary party, they will inevitable be defeated in any situation such as the General PEATONS AAAAAAARA SA educational system than in anything else... The older versions of history were (as they still are)
continuing partition that explained (and still explains) the republican irreconcilables, as the type of history taught about partition and its long-term historical origins." Vive the idealist method of history! There is little in those sentences that an ardent Fianna Fail Common Strike.
Problems in the Trade Unions Today The problems we face in the trade unions today are almost exactly the same as those faced by the members of the Minority Movement; J. H Thomas's NUR was no worse than Cannon's ETU, and the attack by the GWU on the tremendous strike of the Pilkington glass workers •only repeats on a small scale Thomas's refusal to help the miners in 1921. The thing that appears really different from the 1920s is that politics and trade unionism seem more separated now than they were then-we do not have a mutinous army or strikes of a million miners or troops on the streets In the 1920s the real struggle was concerned with whether or not the unions were to be allowed to defend their members. In a period of -economic depression such as the 1920s, the industrialists could only maintain their profits by preventing the trade unions from protecting the pay and conditions of their members. This was the real reason behind the government's determination to crush to crush the General Strike, behind the employers' attack on the miners, and behind the 1927 Trades Disputes Act. However, by the 1970s many of the old symptoms have begun to appear again; for example, unemployment is now at its highest rate for twenty years and, most important, profits have begun to slip again. For example, the average rate of profit in industry fell from 13% to 10% between 1964 and 1966. In some key industries the fall is even greater: for example in the car industry profits fell from 35% in 1954 to 2% in 1967, while last year at least two of the big car companies-Rootes and British Leyland-made losses in their most important sections. In this situation, the employers and the government are being forced to attack the unions again, just as they did in the 1920s. This process has already started with the incomes policy, the In Place of Strife White Paper, and the new Tory proposals. Just as in the 1920s, the working class is resisting the government, with actions such as the Feb. 27th and May 1st strikes of 1969. We can also see the beginnings of a new Minority Movement on the Committees for the Defence of Trade • Unions and the ad hoc committees formed for the May. 1st strike. It is the job of all revolutio naries to help create and spread these committees, and at the same time to avoid the fateful political mistakes the C.P. made in 1926. - done.
Limited Information Value However, having said all this, we should realise that the value of the book in Britain is rather different from its political function in Ireland In the oppressor country a conspiracy of silence exists about the history and politics of the oppressed nation. Hence, although many undoubtedly better books (some out of print)
exist about this period, books like The Years of the Great Test have a limited information value in Britain and are worth reading by the British Left for this reason. Comrades would do well to Fead D. R. O'Connor Lysaght's The Republic of İreland (Mercier Press) as well, which is a much better book. British socialists knowing what they know about the relationship between the Southern Irish Government and all progressive movements will not subscribe lightly to the blithely complacent tone of this book. However, the major events of the period are adequately documented if the political analysis is awry.
Particularly interesting is the situation when De Valera came to power. He did so against a background of a reactionary victory in the Civil War which was not long concluded. Cumann na n'Gaedheal represented the natural victors of this reactionary outcome and against this background De Valera's victory, whatever his future record, looked like a swing to the Left. The Army Comrades Association was formed to protect Cumann meetings. This Association was to develop into the Blueshirts, an embryonic Irish fascist organisation. De Valera, however, was able to lean on his erstwhile political allies, the IRA, and the newly formed Broy Harriers, to defeat the threat of the Blueshirts.
The book also contains some interesting pieces by de Vere White on the fate of the old social hierarchy after the Free State-the Protestant Hierarchy and on the Literature of the Period by MacManus. A piece is included on the development or perhaps one should say nondevelopment of the Irish Labour Party, by Donal Nevin, Research Officer for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Irish Labour Party by its timid activity implicitly accepted the treaty. Its candidates at the 1922 election were left free to state their own position. Its failure to make headway in this period (and largely since) shows that in this period there was no way round the historical problems of the working class, no way FOOD CONVOY DURING THE GENERAL STRIKE-NOTE THE ARMOURED bourgeoisie. In this situation it was not possible to introduce social democratic politics of the West European type. The consciousness of the masses was a lot better than its reflection in the minds of would-be labour bureaucrats Dave Kendal!
The Bulgarian Government has denounced a Greek militant to the Greek dictatorship. At the beginning of July a Greek revolutionary worker, G. Paradellis, was condemned to 15 years of penal servitude by the military tribunal in Athens. He was charged with having stolen plastic. During the public session of the trial, extracts published in the Athens press as well as the emigre press reported the following dialogue:
Psaradellis: "/ consider myself as the representative of all workers. I carry out a struggle for the exploited and oppressed people of the world. I am a member of the Fourth International."
The President: "Why then did they expel you from Bulgaria?"
Psaradellis: "This is not your business. This is a question which will be settled between the Bulgarian bureaucracy, the Bulgarian workers and myself."
Psaradellis would have been arrested in '69 but he managed to escape. He went by boat to Turkey and from there to Bulgaria. The Stalinist bureaucracy in power in Bulgaria refused to give him political asylum and expelled him from the country. When he tried to get back to Turkey, he was arrested by the Bulgarian police who handed him over to the Greek authorities.
Thus, the bureaucrats in Sofia bear direct responsibility for the arrest and condemnation of this revolutionary militant by the Greek dictatorship. All the international revolutionary and worker vanguard must vigorously protest against the loathsome customs of the Bulgarian bureaucrats. We will be organising a picket of the Bulgarian Embassy in the near future. For information ring: 01-837 6954.
SOLIDARITY WITH PRIVATE CAREY Private Carey, Dublin born, British Army soldier, is at present in custody in a military ardroom at Catterick camp. He has recently en court-martialled and had a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment imposed, which is now awaiting confirmation. His "crime" was to have been absent without leave for a year and six days from the Royal Irish Rangers. He left the British Army after being on leave in Derry in August last year. After he had been involved in incidents when the troops were called in, he decided to leave the Army. He returned to Dublin and has there been working under the discipline of Sinn Fein. When he was arrested he made a statement saying that he protested strongly at the British occupation forces in Northern Ireland and would go to prison with pride and dignity if he had to. "I consider it a small price when some of my comrades have lost their lives for Irish freedom.' " Messages of solidarity can be sent to Carey's home at 9 Levere Terrace, Harold's Cross, Dublin.
TORIES TO PROSECUTE LORD PILKINGTON? So confused (and designed to pull the wool over the unions' eyes) are the Tory proposals on industrial legislation that it seems Lord Pilkington could be brought to court. But we are confident the Government will manage to find a suitable qualification to avoid this dangerous situation before the law reaches the statute book.
According to The Times, "Employers could be taken to court if they infringed a worker's right to join a trade union, or to stay out of a union, or refused to employ a person because of his union membership, or non-membership."
Pilkingtons offered to re-employ the Glass and General Workers' Union members whom they had sacked only on condition that they rejoined the G&M.
DEBATE Ernest Mandel v. Tony Cliff (United Secretariat, (International Fourth International) Socialism)
FRIDAY 30th OCTOBER-7.15 p.m. Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, (opposite Euston Station), London.
EVENTS OCTOBER 16th: "Revolutionary Strategy in Ceylon"
Abasingh Bandara speaks on the real nature of the "United Front" government and the fake "Trotskyism" OT me Loor. An No rublic rorum: su omarine Belvedere pub, 96-98 Pentonville Road, London N.1 (Angel tube).
OCTOBER 19th: London Women Unite: meeting to set ua condon women s coordinating committee for winter and spping activities, 8 p.m., Camden Studios, Camden Street, N.W.1 (Mornington Crescent tube)
Ring 574 7407 OCTOBER 21st:: Tariq Ali speaks on Red Europe at York University; lunchtime-afternoon meeting Evening meeting, Hull University Students Union. Ring Spartacus League, 01-837 6954, for details.
OCTOBER 21st: Black Panther speaking tour: meeting in Stafford, Dog & Partridge pub, South Walls, 8 p.m.
Ring Spartacus League, 01-837 6954, for details lions & the Left Effective Protest Speaker Patre tions & the Left-Effective Protest?' Jordan, National Chairman VSC. 7.30 p.m., Meeting House, Euston Road (opp. Euston Station)
TOBER 22nd: Tariq Ali on Red Europ effield University Union Building, 7.00 (see 21st).
ole dents Union, T.t p.m. se 2 Usersity The Laurel Tree, Bay ham Street, Carden is OCTOBER 23rd: Tariq Ali on Red Europe at Leeds (See 21st).
CTOBER 23rd: Black Panther meeting, Mancheste University Students Union, lunch-time (see 21st)
OCTOBER 24th-25th: Workers Control Conferenc Birmingham. Contact Institute for Workers Contro 45 Gamble Street, Forest Road West, Nottingham, NG7 4ET, phone 0602-74504.
OCTOBER 24th: Terence MacSwiney Commemoration 82 p.m. (special tension) Taile teach b)OCTOBER 27th: Black Panther meeting, University of Birmingham Students Union, lunchtime; Universit of Aston Students Union, evening. (See 21st Meetings of the West London Anti-Racialist Cam paign are being held on the first and third Monday of every month at 8 p.m. at The Anchor pub, Uxbridge West Ealing. All those who are interested in a united front to fight racism should attend. OCTOBER 27th: Red Forum: Gery Lawless: The Fight for Irish Self-Determination & the Tasks of the British Left. Earl Russell pub, Pancras Road, (Kings X 8 p.m. (North London Red Circle). Ring 01-837 9987 OCTOBER 28th: Black Panther meeting, Warwick University Students Union building, lunchtime; Lan caster Polytechnic, Warwick, 6.00 p.m. (see 21st)
CTOBER 28th: Picket outside court for Mangro rests. Ring Black Deferica Committee. 01-278 26 OCTOBER 30th: Black Panther meeting, Leicester, 3 p.m. (see 21st).
OCTOBER 30th: Ernest Mandel/Tony Cliff debate. 7.15 p.m., Friends Meeting House, Euston Road (opp Euston Station).
OCTOBER 31st-NOVEMBER 1st: Conference in Cambridge for all hospital workers, medical students nurses, etc. Discussions include tne role or the medica worker in Western society, industrial psychiatry, the Arts from groups in Londor lists in Medicine, 3 Round Church Street, Cambridge OCTOBER 31st: Demonstration against Repression of Black People & Racism, 11 a.m. from Ladb Tube. Ring Black Defence Committee to NOVEMBER 2nd: Tariq Ali on Red Europe, Manchester University Students Union, lunch-time; evening meeting in Lancaster (see 21st).
NOVEMBER 3rd: Tariq Ali on Red Europe, Glasgov (see 21st). (see 216R 3rd: Black Panther meeting, Norwich JOVEMBER 4th: Tariq Ali on Red Europe, Edir urgh, lunchtime meeting. Evening meeting at Stirlin University (see 21st)
NOVEMBER 7th: Women's National Coordinating Committee meeting, South London (details in nex issue).
EVERY MONDAY: Birmingham Red Circle meeting 7.30 p.m., The Black Swan, Bromsgrove Street, Dig DEIn WEDNESDAYS: Stafford Red Circle, 8 p.m, Dog & Partridge, South Walls.
HURSDAYS: Glasgow Red Circle, Christian Institut othwell Street, 7.30 p.r
----- pull-quotes -----
country so as to have a ringside seat for the coming "British Revolution"