Writeback What a puzzling reply!

Scan page 10

Send letters to Socialist Organiser 28 Middle Lane, London N8. No longer than 400 words, please: longer letters are liable to be cut.

READERS of SO may have been

puzzled that in reply to an Open Letter from 15 Brighton and other Briefing supporters, Chris Knight wrote a personal letter to one of the signatories, Dave Lewney, applying pressure on the basis of personal ties. "Dave, please tell me, is this letter really yours?...

It is in fact symptomatic of the whole approach we criticise. Accountability is on the basis of personal ties rather than political agreement - so when erstwhile comrades are elected to councils, you find with few exceptions that your appeal to them is on a personal basis.

Chris portrays the disagreement between Brighton and London as, being due to "personal incompatibility between Greenstein and Bash". If there is one thing Graham Bash and I

agree on, it is that this is not so.

The personalisation of political disputes is a hallmark of the Right.

Chris begins his letter by stating without example that. I refuse to accept Graham's role as impartial chair. He then shifts this to Briefing itself being the impartial chair - a nuclear fusion chamber holding SO and Socialist Challenge together long enough for them to fuse.

Chris's article attacks points in the Open Letter which are not there and severely distorts the rest. E.g: he says we accuse London Briefing of going down the "road to oblivion" , whereas the original letter reads, the left in the Labour Party is not to continue to retreat down the road to oblivion"

Chris states that 'I want to make sure that your joint Open

by ug to Briefing is published

version of the letter was resubmitted, Chris Knight voted with the rest of the Editorial Board not to publish the letter.

Chris 'alleges that 'the two factions in this dispute are really SO on the one hand and Socialist Challenge on the other. That's what it is really about" • Which is strange, since not one of those who signed the Open Letter is an SO supporter - though the majority are closer to SO than Socialist Challenge, as Chris himself admits he is.

Our letter complains about the arbitrary decisions made by the editor of London Briefing, e.g. över the Labour Committee on Palestine. Although Chris admits the substance of the charg: es is true, never does he see any problem in the method by which JOHN HARRIS

decisions to change previously agreed statements are made.

For Chris the 'secret' of Briefing is its 'formal relative impartiality' Although this particular form of organisation may work when there is agreement, e.g. over the need to campaign for Benn in the Deputy Leader campaign, when times change and the left is on the retreat, impartiality becomes an obstacle. It means tailing and not criticising those such as Ted Knight who has done to the campaign against the witch-hunt what even John Golding could not do, i.e. disrupt it from the inside. Even when he threatens to sue Briefing itself, no mention is made of this fact. It means being neutral when the WRP wrecks a Labour Committee on Palestine conference.

There are many inaccuracies and distortions in Chris's letter which space doesn't permit me to take up. All I wish to say is that the Open Letter from Brighton was written in a comradely spirit and as a means of beginning a debate with London. It is a gréat pity that the Editorial Board of Briefing should have been afraid of such a debate on account of jeopardising their relationship with Socialist Challenge supporters. Even Chris admits to Briefing being politically directionless.

TONY GREENSTEIN, Brighton