The new wave ofstudent radicalism -— the sit-ins — the demdnstrations and student strikes -- the protests on Vietnam - including vigorous treatment givon to Labour Cabinet members — should be welcomed by socialists for what it is: a bright ray of sunlight finding its way through the general apathy a acquiesence which the Labour Government has been reigning over since it was elected. © : The programme of the students is rdghiate and the activities and tactics they are using to have it implemented are entirely justified. They are correct in relying on their own strength to win their reforms. If they can win some concessions J— relatively small ones — this alone can serve to show the working class generally that with just a little application of its power, it is possible to show this Government up for what itis a bunch of politcally discredited individuals working in the: interest of capitalism - soemthing of a paper tiger. That is why we must look with more than a little apprehension upon the talk in the press and in Government circles about "controlling" the students, and especially ominous is the calcualting domagagy of Patrick Gordon Walker's playing up to the ignorance and prejudice of sections of the working class with his not so vciled threats. This talk of a taxpayer's revolt is arch-hypocrisy. In their plans for licking the working class into shape, the ruling class have no room for a rebellious student popula— ation, and would seek to turn one against the other. In this respect, a_ Patrick Gordon ‘Walker is doing the employer's work. The employers and the Government are nervous, the tactics and methods of the students have their own infdtimms qualities. Very quickly on the morrow they can become the tactics of the industrial class-struggle on a much wider front. That is why the left should welcome the new upsurge 1 and do their best to understand it and to help to give it direction and a more gerfral purposes. Students must seek to explain their case to the organised working class - no trade union would agree to recent attacks which the students have suffered in relation to their -grants. Likewise militant workers must resist the pressures, grounded in deep—down antagonisms which have a class basis, to take an anti- student stance. We should counterpose student-worker unity against the Government in its foreign and home policies.
Whon doaling with the position of tho Communist Party on Vi j draws attention to the resolutions passed on ata Dal eet ome those in "support of the Victnamose people's right to solf~dotermi nations But unfortunately, these fine words have not always -saincided with the deeds of : Communi s t Party leaders and members, who have concentrated their activities in the British Council for Peace in Viotnam which, as we have noted before, Mrs. Reid forgets about in her article. This organisation, which we must say does very good work in general propaganda, has consistently rofused to adopt @ principled lino on Vietnam. Its founding statcoment of aims stated that the B.C.P.V. did not seck to take sides - how can this be reconciled with giving su port to the right of tho Victnamese poople to self-determination. It has consistently called for "negotiations" as an aim rogardless of the position the Vietnamese themselves havo taken. Of late, it has pushed the slogan: "Support U Thant" The North Victnamese had occasion last year to criticise Fennor Brockway, the chairman of the B.C.P.V., in very strong terms (we have reproduced the text of the main criticism in this issue). The Vietnamese totally rejected U Thant's most roccnt proposals, yet Betty Roid takes the V.S.C. and Tho Weck to task for attacking U Thant. In fect, the criticisms thet V.5.C. had made of U Thant and his proposals were extremely mild in comparison with those made by both North Victnam and the N.L.F., as any regular roader of Vietnam Courier will confirm. Whore does Botty Reid stand on this question? If the V.C.C. and The Week are guilty of "disruption" because of their mild criticisms, then surely, by the same logic, the Victnamese are totally disrupting the peace movement in this country by their much more sevore attacks. But this is obvious nonsense. Betty Reid is counting upon the readors of Comment being unfamiliar with the Vietnamese point of view, which is scldom to be seon in Communist Party publications. ; Noither is Mrs. Reid particularly reliable in her use of quotations: consider how she uses part of Pat Jordan's speech in Trafalgar Square on October 22nd. She wishes to domonstrate that The Week believes that nothing of importance can be done in Britain to defend the Victnamese people until we have a socialist government. But readers of The Wook will know that we have consistently polemicised against this scctarian view attributed to us. In fect, the very passage Betty Reid quotes was directed primarily against those who claim nothing can be done because the Labour Government cannot be foreed to change itspolicy, or that we should suspend activity on Vietnam until after the social revolution. By missing out two sentcnces prior to her quotation and by missing the word "But" from the beginning of her oxtract she maliciously distorts our real position. Readers of this issue can compared her quotation with the original. So much for Mrs. Reid's methods of arguing. What of her politics? Hore we are familaar ground and the issues are straightforward: firstly, whether wo should scek to build a movement on a principled programme or by diluting the programme to give it the widest appeal; and, secondly, on the nature of the “united front." At this point we feel it helpful to quote Harold Wilson when speaking in the House of Commons on Tuesday, March 12, ho said: "Provided that those who domonstrate genuinely want peace and not military victory for one side or the other, if it makes them fe@l good, I have no objection."
In the past, Mr. Wilson has made similar statements, adding that the people who demonstrate should go to the Chinese Embassy. Why does Harold Wilson not object to those who call for "peace"? Because he knows that if the call is confined in such a way the issues become blurred. He can claim, quite correct— ly, that he wants "peaco in Vietnam". It can be argued that Johnson wants "peace in Vietnam", too. The point is, of course, what kind of poace? Supporters of the V.S.C. and The Week want a certain kind of peace, one which is more likely to be a lasting peace, morcovers a peace consistent with selfdetermination for the Vietnamese people. Johnson's "peace" would be that of his victory over tho N.L.F. Therefore, a mere call for "peace" in Vietnam is totally inadequate and confusing. A movement based upon this slogan - as is the British Council for Peace in Vietnam - will be thrown into disarray by Wilson's and Johnson's phoney "peace" moves. Tho B.C.P.V. will, furthermore, appear in the position of putting equal pressure on the victims of aggression and the aggressors to "open negotiations". Little wonder that the representatives of the Victnathese people have had to publicly criticise the Fenner Brockways. Even from a historical point of view all the available cvidence points to a solidarity position being more cffective, as well as being more correct. In Britain, there have been two occasions when really mass movements arose on forcign policy issues: in support of the young Soviet republic in the twentics; and against the fascists in Spain. In both cases, there was mass mobillisition of very wide support and, more important, big sections of the working class were involved. In both cases it was precisely because the movement was committed to one side that it was so large, enthusiastic and effective. We ask Betty Reid: wheat kind of movement would have been built on the programme that called for 'hegotiations" between the young sSoviet Republic and the intervening powers? Would thore have been a mass movement built on the basis of "peace" between the fascists in Spain and the Republicans? To pose these questions is to answer them. Can anyone say that the Vietnamese are less justified in their cause than were the Soviets or the Spanish Republicans? Mrs. Reid, for all her talk about broad support, from her criticism of other left-wing groups wants to make her “united front" in support of the Vietnamese people conditional on agreement on a whole series of other issues not necessar— ily relevant to Vietnam. That is why she finds it necessary to bring in the question of Trotskyism and the Fourth International's estimate of the Soviet Union. But her criterion for working with other leftist groups changes when it comes to forming a front with Christains, Liberals, etc., who are often anti-sogialist and anti-communist. Betty Reid would, no doubt, be very enthusiastic about the fact that the British Peace Committee is so bréad-based that at a conference organised by it in London last week end there were a large number of delegates who support N.A.T.0.. But to work with people who talk of the "agonised socialist conscience of the Western World" is dangerous. We will examine why Mrs. Reid ghinks this is dangerous later, but let us look a bit more at this question or ‘vrvadiness". Is it true that the solidarity position "narrows down the movement for Vietnam"? Look at the messxges of support that the October 22nd demonstration received. The March 17th demonstration is receiving even wider support from all sections of the movement and all walks of life. Mrs. Reid's last argument is thus disposed of.
In the same issue of Peace News which contained Alista '