Our task -"to

Scan page 12

CLIVE Bradley (Socialist Organiser 57) describes the comment by Carol Hobbs that the Laurence Scott workers were 'slow off the mark' as "ludicrous". He should consider the following points.

It was more than two months into the dispute before the workers took the step of picketing the main plant of their employer at Doncaster. The efficacy of this step and the justification for those who had urged it from the start were soon apparent. Within days the employers had agreed to talks.

Many of the workers themselves felt that they had been slow off the mark and commented that they should have picketed the Mining Supplies plant earlier.

Wrong Unfortunately, the stewards' committee, in return for open-ended talks, agreed to lift the picketing. Not surprisingly, with the pressure off the employers, concessions were minimal and unacceptable.

In arguing for the reimposition of the picketing, socialists obviously attempted to point out these lessons and urged the workers to rely on their own actions, not on decisions of the AUEW Final Appeals Court, which has previously been simply ignored by the Executive.

Not only is Clive wrong on the facts, but a more important point is raised.

Criticisms

The Scotts workers have shown heroic persistence and tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds. But socialists may still be fraternally critical of many of the tactics they adopt.

We should be prepared for them not to embrace our criticisms enthusiastically, particularly when we are not directly involved in the dispute. The way we argue is important. However, Carol Hobbs' comment was in fact contrasting the militancy of the workers (even if slow off the mark" with the attitude of the officials.

Resisted

We cannot simply agree with whatever tactics workers are employing in the hope of avoiding argument and currying favour. We would reduce ourselves to the workerism that informs the pages of Socialist Worker and its secondrate imitator Socialist Challenge, simply describing events, passively supporting the existing level of struggle, and pointing no political way forward.

Socialist Organiser has resisted this course, and I think that Clive could have found solid evidence in ny the coverage to comment.

As the letter from the Iranian comrades on the same page points out, "Communists are not nartators of the events. Your duty is to interpret and analyse the situation so as to change it"

CAMPBELL, Manchester.

Duffy YOUR article published last week on the letters page about the so-called working class' and labour' bodies set up by the Zionists in Palestine was very usetul especially in rebutting the propaganda put out by Zionists who allege they are also socialists.

Colonialists

However, the letter suffered from the use of the term Israel' in the headline. The writer of the letter did not use this term and the paper should not either - it is the name used by colonialists for their state and should not be repeated by socialists no more than we say 'Rhodesia' for Zimbabwe" or 'Gold Coast' for 'Ghana'.

To do so is to accept the institutions and the state whose hollow credentials were clearly shown by Comrade Ledez, and which must be opposed in every way by all socialists.

Yours fraternally, ALAN CLINTON FSIN PATRIA LIBRE • MORİ; THE ARTICLE on Nicaragua in Socialist Organiser no.60 struck me as being remarkably philistine in its approach to developments Nicaragua since the overthrow of Somoza.

Although beginning by formally making the correct points (the Sandinistas' attempts to balance between the classes, their limited responsiveness to pressure from the working class and peasantry, etc.), the author goes on to claim that "the Sandinistas have directed their main force against the militant workWriteback to Socialist Organiser 28, Middle Lane London N8 from opposing classes, expropriating capitalist firms one day and banning strikes the next.

But the article gave the impression that the Sandinistas were remorselessly crushing the working class in a manner not dissimilar to Margaret Thatcher.

If the Sandinistas' 'main target' is indeed the working class, then there would hardly be any point It American imperialism working to overthrow them, since they could be relied on the serve its interests.