WRITEBACK Keeping the Bomb?

Scan page 11

A Russian poster from World War 2. But is the question of defence Send letters to Socialist Organiser 28 Middle Lane, London N8. No longer than 400 words please: longer letters are liable to be cut.

TONY RICHARDSON (SO

161) argues that we should te politically opposed to disarmament movements in Stalinist states whilst supporting their right to exist. 'Solidarity with their right to exist' should be coupled with pushing them 'in the direction of overthrowing the bureaucracy and defence of the nationalised property relations'.

Comrade Richardson argues that disarmament in any or all of the Stalinist states would open them up to the possibility of attack by imperialism: to fail to recognise this is to break with the Trotskyist understanding of I would disagree with this position on a number of counts. First of all, we have to have an understanding of the political tasks that face workers in those states. Whilst I think it is in general right not to couple opposition to the Warsaw Pact with opposition to NATO, this is because we are in favour of centring our opposition on the 'enemy at home.

We are - or should be - in favour of the breaking up of the Warsaw Pact by working class action in the Warsaw Pact countries themselves. The military arm of international Stalinism is as anti-working class a force as imperialism is.

IT seems to me that Socialist And concretely, the destruction of the Stalinist states would seem to me to entail the dismantling of its present nuclear capacity.

Second, and connected to this, we should categorically condemn all nuclear weapons as not only nastier Ital conventional weapons, but as fundamentally and inherently anti-working class. Their use could only mean the wholesale slaughter of our class on an international and unprecedented scale.

Any genuine working class government would unambiguously state that it would, under absolutely no circumstances, be prepared to use them against its class allies world wide.

The least that can be said is that if comrades do not agree with this argument it is a bit disingenuous to claim that workers' power is the solution to the war drive, since they actually believe that a workers' state would keep the weapons.

Are comrades such as Tony Richardson in favour of the Stalinist states, or any future workers' state, using nuclear weapons? Hopefully not. But if not, then they should logically be in favour of such states clearly stating that they won't - in which case the effectiveness of the weapons as a 'deterrent' is somewhat reduced.

Do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent anyway? Although I accept that the main thrust behind the war drive comes from imperialism, I for one am not prepared to trust the Stalinist bureaucracies not to blow the world up. And it seems to me to be a terrible deceit for us to pretend to workers in the West that we do put that much faith in them.

Further, put the question another way. Suppose the USSR was to unilaterally disarm tomorrow. That might give imperialism the edge in certain areas of international power politics.

But our alternative imperialism in the third world is not to rely on the USSR. We have a completely different alternative.

Also, it is false to believe that the US would then be able to invade the USSR unhindered.

Soviet disarmament would be a tremendous boost to anti-imperialist movements in the West.

For one thing, the 'deterrent' argument would be blown wide open; no longer able to use the 'Soviet threat' to justify its actions, imperialism would face enormously increased problems in implementing its strategies at an international level.

Certainly a healthy workers state would unconditionally disarm - we rely on the armed working class for our defence, not on any capacity to blow up foreign workers. In my opinion, changed when nuclear bombs replace rifles? a healthy workers' state would also say to the international working class that it believed its own defeat to be preferable to the world-wide slaughter of workers.

I AM wondering if there is another tactic that could be used in suppurt of the CPSA at GCHQ instead of a one-day strike.

If a day's strike action was part of a genuine build-up to a general strike as it was in support of the NGA it would be appropriate.

But as a member of NALGO I know we've had numerous strikes in the last two years. These have been in support of the health workers, Greenham Common women and the residential workers.

NALGO members are feeling that Socialist Organiser's answer to everything is a one-day strike. And that these are At least we would live to fight again.

Yours comradely.

CLIVE BRADLEY Manchester tactic?

not necessarily effective.

If a genuine grass-root: movement is to be built I fee that more activity is needed or the part of CPSA members themselves and a call for ar all-out strike.

In support, or even in the CPSA itself, lightning sit-dow strikes or a refusal to deal witł particular actions, i.e. for socia workers to refuse to attend cour hearings or police interview: might be an alternative build up.

Has anyone got any othe suggestions or comments?

In comradeship CHRIS GOODWI Leiceste COIN THE TA TUR PARRY YOUN ICHALLE Footloose and skint camero room Pose в

----- pull-quotes -----

CLASS JANUARY/FEBRUARY ISEN TOD YCND

Newham 8 eras / ON