The lack of excitement is incredible

Scan page 12

THIS film is unbelievably bad.

Against the background of the peace movement the director introduces a story about the SAS being used against a group of 'terrorists'.

The aim is to show the invincible nature of the SAS, the elite of the elite -a bit like 'Wild Geese' (a previous film by Lloyd)

was aimed at showing black men could not fight unless they were led by whites (in that case mercenaries).

The lack of excitement is incredible: the film is continuous series of flashes of hooded men sliding down ropes and throwing grenades through windows and firing guns through doors.

In the finale the hooded faceless men drop from helicopters and shoot all the 'terrorists' dead. They then get back in the helicopters and fly away.

All the 'terrorists' suitably have guns in their hands when they are killed. (The real thing is different. In the Iranian Embassy siege people who had surrendered were shot dead.)

But nobody would go and see a film of faceless men, so an SAS hero has been introduced Lewis Collings (Bodie of 'Professionals' fame). He initially kills half the terrorists' himself, and is human, ie. he is shown caring about his wife and children and thinks twice about killing the woman terrorist.

All this is quite common fare for moviegoers and inethe sAs propaganda fim might be seen But the film is much more propaganda against the Peace movement and the left than for the SAS.

against the Tebbit Bill with the new broadsheet from the MODIlISIng If-L:l' Committee for Trade Rights.

505: 10= MCST. = Lane, The 'terrorists' are what is described as 'the hard core' of a movement called 'The Peace Lobby'.

This movement is interchangeable for the Peace Movement as a whole.

The film starts off showing this years mass CND demonstration, and then cuts to "The Peace Lobby' as being part of it. All activities of the peace movement are supposed to be organised by "The Peace Lobby'.

By this technique this organisation becomes the peace movement as whole.

No explanation is made of the politics of the hard core' , so one can only assume that the most active members automatically become terrorists. All the people who organise anything are the hard core' Outlawed The woman leader of the terrorists even has her doubts at the end; but she is in too far. In other words it you only do a little, you are helping the terrorists, if you become too active you will become one.

But how does this all arise? Why of course you have a mysterious East European, presumably Russian, visitor giving £600,000 at one go to various organisations. £100,000 goes to "The Peace Lobby', "to finance their kidnapping of the US Deputy of State. The rest of the money goes to various organisations designed to sound like other left groups, e.g., "The International Committee for Workers Control' • very similar to the 'Institute for Workers Control'."

When one peace rally is attacked by fascist skinheads, it turns out that this is financed by the 'Russian' for "publicity' After the terrorists are shot, we switch to the halls of the Houses of Parliament. An MP is defending the 'Peace Lobby' people to another MP. He then strolls away and meets 'the Russian' • So 'Left' MPs are controlled.

And as the credits roll on this film about 'terrorists' the music being played is the 'Red Flag', the anthem of the Workers' movement.

Dear S.o0, I SHOULD like to respond to some extremely illadvised accusations against the SWP made in your recent article on the SWP and the Rank and File.

Leaving aside the issue of the rank and file itself, which, as a four year standing member of Redder Tape, I took exception to your treatment of lit was Socialist Caucus's defection to the Broad Left which created an SWP dominated organisation!), I would like to deal with totally unsubstantiated accusations that the SWP has run down international solidarity work, and takes no part in groups supporting international solidarity.

I personally regard this * scandalous slander.

WHAT IS THE DIFFEREN BETWEEN TOTALITARIAI AND AUTHORITARIAN? UN 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.

Let's look at the balance sheet for action: demos against the Falklands/ Malvinas war - one quarter SWP at least; demos against US intervention in El Salvador - one quarter SWP; demos against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon - one quarter SWP.

In all of these demos, at which I was personally present, I noticed neither a large Socialist Organiser presence nor any more than two Labour Party banners on each!

In my own branch, Brixton, there are two leading members of Turkey Solidarity Campaign, and a member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign. 1 have friends in Guildford branch who maintain conWELL, A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT ARRESTS, TORTURES AND MURDERS UN YOU are right to stress the importance of the miners' wage claim as a focus for a mass mobilisation against the Tories this winter. Our line in relation to Arthur Scargill should not be that he walks on water but 'support him but keep a weather eye cocked'. tact with underground Solidarnosc activists. And who was it who consistently plugged the campaign to adopt Solidarnosc internees?

We have had comrades this year in Central America and Brazil. One of our comrades got out of Beirut by the last plane to leave, and we lost two comrades in Kurdistan fighting with the Pesh Merga.

The SWP has fraternal comrades in Canada, USA, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Denmark, and Norway.

In short, comrades, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Brixton SWP.

AUTHORITARIAN

'ERNMENT, ON THE ER HAND...

If the dispute is to be fought, Scargill will need to be pushed from below. As in the past, rank and file miners would be well advised not to rely on the Executive.

In the past, Scargill's actions have not lived up to his brave words, as during the steel strike, the Laurence Scott dispute and his failure to call for a one-day strike on June 10 against Tebbit (or in support of the NHS dispute) by all miners. We can see how far and no further he has been prepared to go in the ASLEF sellout where he promised the drivers support if they wished to continue the dispute but did not take the issue up himself either with the rank and file or on the TUC General Council. As things have got tougher, Arthur Scargill has got a little softer. In 1974 he went to the NUM Executive and argued for strike action in support of the Shrewsbury Two, even though UCATT were not taking action.

In the last two years he has only been willing to give financial and moral support to other groups at official level and in practice did little to alienate the AUEW leadership over Scotts.

Scargill suffers from important political weaknesses. He is not prepared LEAVES MANY OF THESE FUNCTIONS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR to think through the implications of what he is about and this can crucially weaken the leadership he is able to provide.

For example, he argues «The Alternative Economic Strategy is a policy within che existing system. It does not take the necessary step where we have to take the state machine. Unless we recognise the power of the armed forces and the police then we have not quite frankly understood the class nature of our society" (The Collier, number 38)

The Tory Biffen quite correctly stated at the time of the 1981 closure dispute "What we have seen demonstrated over the last week is something which we have long known and this is the capacity of certain sections of organised labour to exercise extra-parliamentary authority."

What could happen this winter if the NUM claim is properly prosecuted in "an exercise of extra-parliamentary authority» could pre taking the shate estat does Scargill think about this? Is he prepared for it to happen? Does he want it to happen? How does he relate his talk of socialist transformation and bringing down the Tories to the industrial action of his own members? What can be done to deepen NUM members' understanding of the political implications of their action?

Many of us will suspect that Scargill in reality, rather than in rhetoric separates taking the state or even bringing down the Tories from a possible NUM strike, that he sees the limits of the dispute as a collective bargaining struggle with the Tories.

That seemed to be his position in the 1981 strikes. The logic of this is a collective bargaining compromise.

Such a favourable compromise will hopefully provide the possibility of encouraging other workers but will squander the full potential of the dispute. But what if Thatcher stands firm

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

Richardson reviews Evan