Fight back -don't take cover!
Socialist Organiser1982 1982-03-11Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 12 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 12
IN THE Science Column in SO 74, Les Hearn argues for Labour councils to reject the half-hearted attempts at protection against nuclear attack offered by the government and draw up their own counter-proposals for civil defence.
I agree that we should argue for Labour councils not to participate in Civil Defence exercises, especially since the Government's form of civil defence is based on preserving some form of capitalist "law and order" not only after a nuclear war but also, it seems to me, during a major upheaval, such as a general strike, which threatened the existence of capitalist rule.
However, I feel it would be wrong for us to argue for labour councils, to counterpose their own deas for civil defence to those of the government. In my view, the only real protection against nuclear war is for the working class to disarm the capitalists.
Arguing for 'better" civil defence can only deflect us from that aim. We should argue for Labour councils to use their rejection of civil defence measures to agitate for the working class to disarm the imperialists.
Alternatives
Nuclear war, even if originally limited to Europe would lead to the destruction of nut only most of the population but also of much of the material base of capitalist society. it is on this material base that we seek to build a socialist society.
We should fight for socialist alternatives to it, not seek protection from its barbarism.
Will Adams Cambridge 1 Dear 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. ACTION