Don't vote for Kinnock!

Scan page 13

Prup (pius top pap) nom wou, ru Dox "progressive' and 'anti-imperialThe TP says it clearly: Religion is not in itself reactionary. On the contrary, it can be a progressive phenomenon: "From its inception, Islam has reilected the voice of the oppressed and the poor and declared war against the exploiters, the usurers and the oppressors ... such doctrines reveal the democratic and anti-aristocratic nature of Islam." (Quoted in MERIP, no. 75).

Such a novel insight was, of course, extremely useful to a party trying to curry favour with an Islamic regime. Thus, because the TP presents Islam as a progressive force, Myant talks of 'the reactionary use of seemingly Islamic ideas and precepts."

But, once again, the result of Myant's analysis is to whitewash the regime: at heart they are all progressive chaps, even if they savagely repress all the women of Iran, even if they do stone to death the odd gay or torture to death the occasional socialist, but they've just been led astray by the right wing.

Thus, whilst itself facing attacks from the reactionary Islamic regime, the TP continues to regard that regime as potentially progressive and concentrates its fire on the Mojahedin "terrorists" and the leftist opposition. SOCIALIST Organiser's coverage of the Labour Party leadership "contest" has correctly called for a vote for Heffer and Meacher on the first ballot. It is inconceivable to me that we should lower ourselves to support Kinnock on the second (presumably, as the lesser of two evils), teeth gritted or not.

It is I think obvious to the whole country (with the exception of the editorial boards of a few socialist journals) that the Kinnock/Hattersley match is a friendly and that the vanquished will get a runners-up medal (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Leadership).

Indeed Richard Gott in the Guardian last Saturday week described the contest as a Welsh windbag versus a Yorkshire gasbag and pointed out that either (or in tandem?) were poison to real socialist advance.

The decision to sapport a 'left' is not automatic but is a tactical decision. We support 'lefts' in order to break them from their passivity, put power in their hands and demand they break from the bourgeoisie. Since the only followers Kinnock and Hattersley seem to have are in the media and the bureaucracy we seem to be addressing only ourselves... I mean can you see the slogan "Kinnock! Break with the bourgeoisie!'?

To balance up the attractions of the candidates, Kinnock seems to support a bloodless version of party policy on unilateralism while Hattersley has the advantage of being older and therefore has less opportunity to wreck the movement. Neither asset is decisive enough to justify a vote.

We should support Heffer "with gritted teeth" and abstain thereafter. Despite a generally good record of voting on the NEC, Heffer was chair of the inquiry which was instrumental in denying Brent East CLP the right to reselect and has failed to this day to so much as supply the CLP with a copy of the report. I can vote for him, just. But Kinnock • perhaps my stomach isn't strong enough for politics.

Comradely, MICK WOODS Kilburn. Special issue on struggle in the unions: also contains articles on workers' politics and national liberation, and the Stalinist state 'unions' Tie Tolera 1 Cue se D.

135, London N1 ODD OUT NUPE aa 1 f'esn ces HACT DA D--i

Scan page 14

ugry epilogue to the March Socialist Organiser no. 141, July Jim Denham writes:

MORE AND more labour movement bodies are registering 21/28 1983, Page from the Eastern leg when it was discovered that she was two months pregnant.

Another woman marcher, SO supporier Helen Johnson, St Mary's: workers occupied against the closure NUPE CU IN SERVIGEO

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

Workers Review

People march for jobs o