Socialist Action and the Labour Committee on Ireland

Scan page 10

A NUMBER of points need to be made in response to the less than honest letter from Martin Collins which appeared in SO 131 and which criticised the report in previous issue on the AGM of the Labour Committee on Ireland (LCI).

For reasons of space we limit ourselves to the following:

*The letter contained number of unsubstantiated slanders (e.g. the reference to "the sagging confidence of SO supporters") and downright lies leg. "SO ... is playing no role at all" in building the LCI").

*Collins does not even make any attempt to address himself to the contents of the article, which constituted an honest account of a not particularly fruitful conference. After the letter's opening paragraph, the article itself is completely ignored.

*Collins lists six points as "proof" of the valiant work of Socialist Action (SA) supporters in the LCI. In fact, only two of the six were put to the conference. One was defeated, whilst the other originally emanated from a motion from Glasgow LCI.

Gloomy

*The letter dishonestly refers to "the gloomy pessimism of your (SO's) writer." " If Collins bothered to read the article with any degree of attention or honesty he would have noticed that it concluded with a number of highly positive proposals for building the LCI.

*Collins takes exception to SA proposals being characterised as "zany". But is it not zany to propose that the LCI proTHE plants we grow for food all have wild ancestors and relatives. Presumably our ancestors used to just go and pick these plants to eat. Then later on, they started actually planting seeds from these plants, to make the supply more regular and reliable.

The next step was to plant geeds from only the best' plants - the ones with the biggest yield. Then, as plants on BV Box 5355, London WCIN 3XX duce a magazine at an uneconomical price and for which it does not have the resources anyway? Is it not zany to still believe now, after 14 years of unsuccessful Irish solidarity work, that a gut reaction to the Army's violence (e.g. use of plastic bullets) can provide the basis for building a withdrawal movement? Is it not zany for SA supporters to lecture and hector Labour Party members on how to build a withdrawal movement when it is not that long since they backed candidates standing against Labour, as a way of building a withdrawal movement?

*What makes Collins' letter particularly pathetic is the record of SA supporters in Glasgow LCI branch, one of the most serious in the country. Two SA supporters are members of it. One joined five minutes before the LCI AGM. The other joined in February 1983 and has since attended one LCI meeting. Glasgow LCI has been in existence for three years. The contribution of SA supporters to it throughout that time has been precisely nil.

We would be only too happy debate out the contents of the article and this letter with SA supporters in Glasgow. Unfortunately, though, none of the attempts we have made at debate with SA supporters has even provoked a reply, never mind a debate.

And the last time we challenged them to a debate, their local "leading lights" never even informed the other SA supporters of our challenge. Would it be any different this time round?

Yours in solidarity, Glasgow SO supporters 2600 Send letters to Socialist Organiser 28 Middle Lane, London N8. No longer than 400 words, please: longer letters are liable to be cut.