For some time we have buen aware of differences between the two above Ouwganisations over Cuba and some other questions. Now the differences have come out in the open, although not in a straightforward manner, Interestingly onough it is not on the question of Cuba that things have come to light but on a very different subject. In the latest issue of Labour Reveiw , the journal of the S.L.L., it sayss
" weeeee Tho SWE works in an environmont which has many foatvres which. can debilitato and discourage individuals and movements" after outlining some o7 these features it goes on "..e...etho revolutionaries in the SWP nsed pericdically to check over their own political work against these dangers. In a position cf relative political isolation, of constant battle against the curront, a diver sion from true course can creep up unsuspectedly. A search for a shorter way, for alliances which may impose accomodation to alien trends, for regroupments without solid theoretical bases, for programmatic adaptions to suit what are ass-umed to be American peculiarities — these have constantly derailed American socialists in the poriod since 1917. The attontion of the loaders of the STP mst bo constantly directed to such dangers, as they may affect their own policy and thinking"
It is indeed_a funny way to direct tho attention of the leaders of the SVP to such dangers in British theoretical journal, A more likely explanation is that the remarks aro for the bonofit of the mombors of the S.L.L. to texplain why tho leaders of the SWP have ‘deviated! on the question of Cuba and unity of the world Trotskyist movement. Far from accomodating themselves to their environment on the question of Cuba, American Trotskyists in the SWP have shown a most heroic attitude, in the face of all tho hysteria raised by U.S. imporialism in its hatred of the Cuban Revolution, We may indoed bo proud of the stand of the SP on Cuba,