KETTLE(Continued from 3rd Feb.) by Ken Tarbick
Arnold Kettle puts forward a programme for united left action, and many of the points most left-wingers would agree with, but there are a number which raise doubts. For instance "End Britain's Support for U.S. policy in Vietnam", Unless this is firmly linked with not merely being against the ‘/iison policy but also for a victory of the N.L.F. and the withdrawal of U.S. troops, this could lead to suppert for 'negotiations'. In the present situation such. noggtiations would only be entered into by the U.S. to connive at obtaining at the table what they are incapable of obtaining in battle. : When the government is asked to support "Stop appeasing the Smith Governmont in Rhodesia", it at first evokes a positive response, but does this mean that Kettle is for sending British troops into Rhodesia? Many of us on the left would be against this. I think that they would only go there to act. in the interests of British imperialism, for since when hes the British Army acted as a colonial liberation force? The proper course is for Britain to aid the Rhodesian Africans to throw out the Smith regime themselves, and to aid them in any way they desire . Again- what are we to make of "Steel nationalisationag a first step to a systeratic attack on the power of the monopolies", We have to ask in view of past experience of nationalisation- is not the proper policy "For steel nationalisation under workers' control". This is a point socialists « ': * should be clear one Nationalisation without workers' control is merely state-capitalism. Furthermore nationalisation must not merely be of one industry but of the real commanding heights. Is the Communist Party for workers! control? I think the next item is a crucial one for any discussion on the way forward for the left, not only in this country tut in the world, Kettle suggests *hat the united left should demand "Yew initiatives in foreign policy towards dise»»sement, disarmament and positive forms of peaceful co-existence". What is meant by peac coexistence? Is it possible to coexist with American aggression in Victmar.’? Is it possible to coexist with imperialism's attempts to strangle the Cuban or any socialist/nationalist revolution? I think not. If peaceful coexistence leais to such situations as the 1954 Geneva Agreement on Vietnam, I would say the answer to such a policy is daily being demonstrated in South Vietnam. Look at the present plight of the Indonesian Communist Party. Peace is not bought by asking imperialism to stop being what it is by its very nature. It can only be gained by struggle sgainst imperialism until it is defeated. If Arnold Kettle wants to unite the left, let him come forward with a socialist foreign policy of anti-imperialism, Today America is the main bastion of imperialism- this means a policy directed to defeating America and its allies in their overseas adventures, This reply leaves unsaid many things. However, I will conclude by saying that before Arnold Kettlecan think of asking the left to unite with him and ther members of the C.P.G.B. in an organised campaign he should put his own house in order. It is not enough at this stage to come forward with suggestions such as he does, because the Left will still be sceptical. This does not Mean of course that those on the Left should not work with members of the Communist Party in individual campaigns,