[I WAS appalled at the graphic, cartoon or…]

Scan page 12

I WAS appalled at the graphic, cartoon or whatever you want to call it on the front page last week (May 28th). Presumably the female figure was supposed to be Margaret Thatcher, and presumably this is supposed to justify a depiction full of loathing for the female body.

The cartoon was the visual equivalent of the slogan 'Ditch the Bitch' lor worse) which thanks to a campaign by Women's Fightback has more or less disappeared from left demonstrations.

Would SO, I wonder, publish a Black Sambostyle cartoon if we had a black Tory prime minister?

This image of Thatcher was not merely sexist in the everyday sense: it was so misogynist that it could have been drawn by Peter Sutcliff.

If your skin is too thick to If your thick to recognise what's wrong with publishing a witch-like object of sexual disgust on the front page, why not ype out and pin up on your vall the simple guidelines that Michelle Stanworth suggests in the May issue of Women's Fightback: 'The struggle' against Thatcherism must focus on her policies and her power, not her femaleness' RACHEL LEVER CARLOS Garcia (SO 86) and many other comrades argue for supporting Argentina in its war with Britain - rather than denouncing both sides as reactionary - on the grounds that Britain is imperialist and Argentina is not.

Less reactionary

But surely socialists do not believe that weaker capitalist classes are any less reactionary than the big world-dominating capitalist classes? To believe that they are -that we must automatically consider the smaller and weaker capitalist classes (not so small and weak, either, in the case of Argentina) as progressive when they come into conflict with bigger and strongDear 5 We invite readers to send us their letters, up to a usual maximum length of 400 words.

Send to Socialist Organiser, c/o 28. Middle Lane. London N8.