'..'

EDUCATION FOR SOCIALISTSISSUED BY THE NATlONAL EDUC'ATION~ENT SOCIAUST WORKERS~ 14 Q-lARLES LANE NEW't'ORK, N.Y.10014

AGAINST VIOLENCE

WITHIN THE·

WORKERS M·OVEMENT

April 1974

'",

Introductory Note on Violence Within the Movement,by Caroline Lund 3

Section One: On Workers Democracy, by ErnestMa~cl 4

Section Two: Violent Factionalism in the "New" Left 71. Weatherman Leader Defends Hooligan Tactics, byHarry Ring 72. Democracy in the Movement a

Section Three: The Progressive Labor Party Attacksthe Antiwar Movement 101. PL Attacks Meeting of SMC Steering ~ommittee 102: YSA Condeulns Violence in the M~veinent 113; Wide A~tayofGroupSBack SMC AgainstPL

"'Attacks, by Mike Kclly 114. PL-SDS Fail in Attempt to Break Up AntiwarConvention, by Harry Ring 12

Section Four: The Young Workers LiberationLeague Attacks Student Rights 141. YWLL, Leadet:Defends Its Actions 142. Democraieyin fhe Student Movement; Where,Does the YWLL Stand? by Joseph Harris andMalik Miah 153. Reviving Old Tactics 16

Section Five: Defending the Movement Against aSectar~n Kampage, " 11

1. Labor Commj~eeGoQ'hsAttack the YWLL 172. Temple U~iversityYSAUrges UDitedDefenseof YWLL 183. Repudiate NCLC Gangsterism 194. NCLC Hooligans Attack Candidates Meetingat Columbia University, by Doug Jenness 205. Daily World Falsification 216. Cops and Rightists Join NCLC's Anti-CommunistCampaign 227. Young Socialist Alliance Conference in DetroitRepulses NCLC Attack, by Mike Kclly 238. Attack on SWP Campaign Supporters BringsDemand for Arrest of NCLC Thugs, by LindaJenness 249. Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks DemandsConviction of Goons 25

Section Six: Tactics and Principles in the FightAgainst Violence in the Movement 26Our Defense Against the Goon Attacks Launchedby the NCLC, by Barry Sheppard 26

Appendix: Trotsky's Letter to the Attorney-General of Mexico 31

Introductory Note on Violence Within the Movement

,By Caroline Lund

This bulletin contains articles explaining the Marxistposition of opposition to the use of violence to settle dif­ferences within the workers movement and how this posi­tion was applied in practice by the Socialist WorkersParty and the Young Socialist Alliance in the radicalmovement during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

This question has been a vitally important one for theTrotskyist movement since its inception. Because of ourrevolutionary views and devotion to proletarian democ­racy, Trotskyists have been the targets of violence fromboth the StaliDists and the trade union bureaucracy. Oursupport for workers democracy is a reflection of confi­dence that the revolutionary-Marxist program representsthe interests of the working class. Unlike Stalinist or trad~union bureaucrats, who fear that open and democraticdecision-making will undermine their positions, we haveeverything to gain from. the open counterposition of ourviews to those of the reformist and ultraleft currents inthe working class movement

In the current radicalization, the SWP and the YSA standout as the only tendency that has consistently championeddemocracy within the movement This has included rejec­tion of redbaitingand unyielding opposition to the ex­clusion of any tendency or group from united frontstnlg- .gles.

A striking example of. the cQrrectness of this approachwas the role played by . Trotskyists in the movementagainst the Vietnam war. Redbaiting, exclusion, and vio-·lence were introduced into. the· movement by other ten~

dencies as a method of av-oiding democratic discussionof differences. The SWP and YSA convinced· the over­whelming majority of antiwar activists to support thedemocratic right of all tendencies to participate in themovement, and to protect c·onferences and demonstrationsagainst violent disruption from any quarter. This policyhelped the antiwar movement achieve its mass impact

In every instance of violence within the <tadi(!al move­ment-whether by members of Students for a DemocraticSociety, the Progressive Labor Party, the Young WorkersLiberation League, or the National Caucus of Labor Com­mittees - the SWP and YSA responded by attempting torally all tendencies in the movement to condemn such at­tacks. At the same time, Trotskyists took the lead .in form­ing united marshalling teams to defend therignt of themovement to carry on its activities without interference.

3

The correctness of this SWP and YSA policy receiveddramatic confirmation from the post-Watergate exposuresof government attempts to disrupt and destroy the antiwarmovement and the Black liberation movement These de­velopments have revealed that the ruling class attempts toinspire violence within the radical movement in order todisrupt and discredit it FBI "COINTELl'RO" (Counter­intelligence Program) documents, obtained as a result ofthe suit by Carl Stern of NBC News against the JusticeDepartment, show that FBI, White House, and local policedePa.rtment spies fomented violent confrontations betweenradical leaders and groups and encouraged ultraleftyouths to seize the platforms at antiwar demonstrations. .

These revelations are evidence that, however "revolu­tionary" the motivations of participants in such actiVities,disruptive tactics such as these benefit only the rulingclass. The FBI documents reveal that the governmentitself often provokes such acts to prevent united actionagainst its policies. One FBI communique, for example,instructed its operatives to "prevent the coalition of mili­tant black nationalist groups. In unity there isstrength...." The FBI documents mC?tivate a policy ofinstigating violence by pointing out that this helps todiscredit movements for social change in the eyes of themasses of people.

Another. result of violence within the movement- onethe FBI cannot admit to .promoting-is that it frustratesthe desire of activists to get at the truth through a demo­cratic discussion of different ideas and proposals.

Recent events in the trade union movement have pro­vided fresh evidence of the anti-working class role playedby attempts to settle differences in the labor movement by.violence. The goon attacks ordered by the TeamstersUnion officialdom against striking farm workers in 1973hurt the entire union movement, and aided the bosses.·The ranks of the United Mine Workers Union-fed up withthe murderous violence against dissidents by the corruptBoyle regime in the union-finally succeeded last 'yearin throwing out the corrupt leadership and in reinstitutingsome democratic procedures in their union.

As new militant struggles by the working class unfold,we can expect that the question of workers democracy andviolence within the workers movement will continue to beof crucial importance.

April 1974

' ..

Section One:

On Workers Democracy

By Ernest Mandel

[The following article first appeared in the January20, 1969 issue of Intercontinental Press, a revolutionary­Marxist newsweekly.]

[Roger Garaudy, one of the leadingintellectuals of the Communist party ofFrance, visited Belgium November 5to give a lecture on "May 1968 inFrance," at the request of the Commu­nist Student Union of Brussels Uni­versity. Itwas notsurprisingthatradi­cal students considered a lecture onthis topic by a representative of theFrench CP as a provocation.

[In any case, when the meeting·started, a feW dozen Maoists carryingportraits of Chairman Mao and anal'­chistscarrying a black flag persis~

tently tried~ for the most part suce

cessfully- to prevent Garaudy fromaddressing the audience.

[A confused debate followed in whichthe question of whether Garaudyshould be allowed to speak was mixedwith the question of whether or not arevolutionary situation had existed inFrance in May.

[Finally, the Maoists and anarchistsended .the debate by pushing Garaudyout of the meeting hall.

[This incident raised serious ques­tions about the norms of democraticdebate and behavior in the workingclass and socialist movement In an­swer to some of the questions raised,Ernest Mandel, the well-known Marx­ist economist and editor of the Belgiansocialist weekly La Gauche. wrote anarticle on the subject of workers de­mocracy which appeared in two partsin the November 16 and November23 issues of La Gauche. Because ofthe timeliness of the topic, we are re­producing the article below. The trans­lation is by Intercontinental Press.]

• • •The lamentable incidents which oc-

curred at the ULB [UniversitaireLibrede Bruxelles- Free Universityof Brussels] when Garaudy came tospeak there have induced me to ex­plain once again why we adhere tothe principles of workers democracy.

Workers democracy has alwaysbeen a basic tenet of the proletarian

movement. It was a tradition in thesocialist and communist movementtofirmly support t!lis principle in thetime of Marx and Engels as well asLenin and Trotsky. It took the Stalin­ist dictatorship in the USSR to shake

. this tradition. The temporary victoryof (ascism in West and Central Europealso helped to undermineit However,the origins of this challenge to workersdemocracy are deeper and older; theylie in the bureaucratization ofthe largeworkers organizationS.

The Social Democratic and trade­union bureaucrats were the first tobegin to undermine the principles ofworkers democracy. Theystartedcall­ing general membership meetings atinfrequent intervals. Then they beganto rig them, or often to do away withthem altogether. They began likewiseto restrict or abolish freedom of dis­cussion and criticism within their or­ganizations. T}ley did not hesitateeven to appeal to thepolice(includingthe secret police) for help in fightingrevolutionary minorities. At the timeof the first world war, the GermanSocial Democracy set a dismal exam­ple of collusion with the state repres­sive forces. In subsequent years, the

'Social Democrats everywhere fol­. lowed this example.

The Soviet bureaucracy first and .then the bureaucrats in the StalinistCommunist parties (orin tradeunions .under Stalinist leadership) simplyfol­lowed the pattern established by theSocial Democrats, extending itfurtherand further. They abolished freedomof discussion and of tendencies. Slan­der and lies replaced argument anddebate withoppone.nttendencies. Theymade massive use of physical force.to prevent their opponents from "caus­ing any harm." Thus, the entire Bol­shevik old guard which led the Octo­ber Revolution and the majority of themembers of Lenin's Central Com­mittee were exterminated by Stalinduring the dark year! of the Great

4

Purge (1935-38).The young generation of anti-impe­

rialist and anticapitalist militants nowdeveloping a revolutionary con­sciousness are spontaneously return­ing to the traditions of workers de­mocracy. This was apparent inFrance inMayandJunewhenfreedomof speech for all tendencies was jeal­ously safeguarded in the assemblies ofstudents and revolutionary workersand students. But this new generationis not always conscious ofall the pI'in­cipled and practical reasons for work­ers democracy.

This is why the youth can be vul­nerable to a kind of Stalinist-deriveddemagogy being spread by certainpro-Chinese sects, which seek to makepeople believe that workers democ-

: racy is contrary to "the interests of therevolution." Therefore, it is necessaryto reaffirm these reasons strongly.

The workers movement fights forthe emancipation of the proletariatBut this emancipation requires theabolition of all forms of exploitationto which the workers are subjected.Rejecting workers democracy meansquite simply that you want to main­tain a situation like the one today inwhich. the masses of workers are UD-

. able to make their opinions heard:The. Marxist critique of bourgeois

democracy starts from the idea thatthis democracy is onlyJonnalbecausethe workers do .not have the material

'. means to exercise the rights which thebourgeois constitutions formallygrant all citizens. Freedom of thepress is just a formality when onlythe capitalists and their agents are ableto get together the millions of dollarsneeded to establish a daily newspaper.

But the conclusion thatfollowsfromthis critique of bourgeois democracy,obviously. is that means must be cre­ated enabling all the workers to haveaccess to the media for disseminatingideas (printing presses, meeting halls,radio and television, posters, etc.).

If, on the contrary, you conclude fromthis that only a self-proclaimed "lead­ing party of the proletariat" - or evena little sect which declares thatitaloneis "genuinely revolutionary"- has theright to speak, to use the press, or topropagate its ideas, then you risk in­creasing the political oppression of the

. workers rather than abolishing it.The Stalinists often reply that abo­

litioJ;l of the capitalist system equalsemancipation ofthe workers. We agreethat abolition of priv:ate ownership ofthe means of production, of the profiteconomy, and of the bourgeois stateare essential conditions for theemanci­pation of the wo~kers. ButsaYing thatthese are "essential" conditions doesnot me~p that they are "sufficient."Because" as soon as the capitalist "sys­tem is abolished, the question arisesof who is going to rul) the factories,the economy, the mUnicipalities, thestate, the schools and universities.

{fa single party claims the rightto adn,ili.tister the state and the society;if it iIriposes. a monopoly of power byterror; it it dOes not permit the ma!lsof workers to expressthefr, opinipDs,theb: criticisms, their worries, and theirdemandS; if it excludes the workersfrom adminiStration-then it is inevi­table that a wideningguIrwill developbetween this omniPotent bureaucracyand the mass of workerS.

Then, emancipation of the workersis only a deception. And without realworkers democracy in all areas, in­cluding freedom of organization andpress, real emancipation of the work­ers is impossible.

These principled reasons are rein­forced by practical ones. Like all so­cial cla~ses in history, the workingclass is not homogeneous. Ithas com­mon class interests, both immediateinterests and historical interests. Butthis community of interes!S- is ipter­woven with differences which havevarious origins - immediate specialinterests (professional, group, region­al, craft interests, etc.land differelltlevels of cOnScioUsness. Many strataof the working ~ass have not yetbecome conscious of their historicalinterests~ Others have been influencedby . bourgeois and petty-bourgeoisideologies. Still others are weigheddown by the burden of past defeatsand failures, of skepticism, or of thedegradation caused by capitalist so­ciety, etc.Howev~, thecapitalis"t system can-

not be overthrown unless the entireworking class is mobilized in actionagainst it.· And this unity in actioncan only be obtained if these variousspecial interests and levels of con­sciousnessca.n ,be expressed in. andlittle by littte neutrlUized through, de­bate and persuasion. DenYing . thisdiversity can only result in a break­down of unity in action and in driv~

ing successive groups of workers intopassivity or, into the camp of theenemy.

Anyone with experience in strikeshas been able to see in practice thatthe most successful actions are pre­pared anQ ~onducted through nu~er­

ous assemblies, first of the unionizedworkers and later of all the workersCOncerned. Iilthe.se assemblies, all thereasons in favor of th~ iltrikecali bedeveloped, all opblions can be ex­pressed, and an the class enemy'sarguments can be exposed. If a strikeis launched without the benefit ofsuChdemocracy, there "is much more'riskthat many workers will observe ithalfueartedly, if at all:'.•If this is true for an isolated strike,ith~ds"all, the. more for a generalstrUte orlor a revolution. All thegreatrev.olutionary mobiliz~tions of thewoJ;ke:n - from the Ru.ssian revolu­tiQn to •therevolutiollary .upsurge of¥ay anQ ",une 1968 in Franc;e andincl\lding the. Gelman, and Spanish~OJ.utiOD.s,tOcite only these exam­ples,.....have beencharacte~byver,":itable., ex.pl0(8ions of workers democ­r~C:y. In these instanc:es, many.work­ing-class tendencies coexisted, ex­pressed themselves freely in speechesand in the press, and deb~tedbeforethe entire class.

The word "soviet"- council ofwork­ersdelegates-expresses this unity ofopposites - the unity of the workers.in the diversity of their tendencies.In' the Second Congress of RussianSoviets, which took power inthe 0c­tober Revolution,there were a dOzendifferent tendeI1c1es and parties.'Everyattempt to repress this-i.¥orkers democ­racy-by the Social Demo<;racy inGermany, by the Stalinists inSpain­hall presa.ged, if not expressed, a set­back or defeat for the revolution.

The absence of workers democracynot only hampers unity in action, italso obstructs working out a correctpoliticalline..

It is true that' the workers move­ment has an excellent theoretical in-

5

~trument to guide it in the often ex­tremely complicated twists and turnsof economic, social, and politicalstruggles - revolutionary Marxism.But this tool must still be used cor­rectly. And no one person has a mo­nopoly on its correct application.

Without any doubt, Marx and Leninwere geniuses. But life and historyceaselessly pose new problems whichcannot be solved simply by turningto the scriptures. Stalin, who was con­sidered by many honest Communistsbefore his death to be ~infallible," inreality cQeIJlmitted many errors, to saynothing of crimes, some ofwhich -- asin agricultural policy-ha~ehadper­nicious consequences for three decadesfor the entire Soviet people. Mao Tse­tung, whom other naive souls alsoconsider "infallible,R endorsed the poli­cy of Aidit, the leader of the Indone­sian CP, up until the eve of the mili­tary coupd'etal This policy was atleast partially responsible for thedeaths of 500,000 Indonesian Com­munistS and workers.

As for the myth that the CentralCommittee of a partyis "always right,"or that the majority of this committeeis "always right," Mao himselfrejectedit in the famous resolution passed bythe CC of the CCP [Chinese Commu­nist PiU'ty) on the "cultural revolutiQJ1"in April 1967.

But if no person or group has amonopoly on truth. and wisdom, thendiscussion is indispensable to deter­mine a correct poli,ticalline. ~jectionof ~ssion under any pretext (andthe pretext that a political opponentis "counterrevolutionary" or ,-an "ene­my agent" ,is as old as bureaucracy),or substituting epithets or physicalviolence fOf debate, means condemn­ing oneself to remain the vi~ offalse ideas, inadequate apalyses, anderrOrS w.th .debilitating if not cata-strophic consequences. . .

Marxism is a guide to action, theyoften, say. That is true. But Marxismis distinguished from utopian social­ism by its appealtoscientijicanalysis.It does not focus on action per .e. Itfocuses on action which can influencehistorical reality, which can changeit in a given direction-in the direc­tion of socialist revolution, toward theemancipation of the, workers and ofall humanity.

Out of the clash of ideas and ten­dencies, the truth emerges which canserve' asa guide to action. Aetion

inspired by"monolithic."bookish, andinfantile thought-which is not su~jected to the uninhibited criticism pos­sible oniy in a climate of workersdemocracy- is condemned to certainfailure. It can only result, in the caseof small 'groups, in the diSillusion­ment and demoralization of individu­als; in the case of unions or largerparties, in defeats for the class; andwhere the mass of the workers isconcerned, in defeats with alongtrainof, humiliations, priVations. and im­poverishment, if not casualties.

Often these arguments in favor ofthe princip1esand practice of workersdemocracy are countered in Stalinistcircles by' the 'assertion that workersdemocracy cannot be extended to the"enemies of socialism" inside the work­ers' movement Curiously, certaingroups which claim to be antibureau­cratic and very left take a similar lineto justify booingand hissingorresort­ing to physical violence as a substi­tute for debate with their politicalopponents.

Both the Stalinists and the ultra­leftists cry: "You don't argUe withrevisionists, :capitallst forces, and thereptesentatives of the enemy." In prac­tree, the Stalinists try to replace d~

bate by repression, if n9t murder andthe use of tanks against the workers(from the Moscow Trials to the mter­vention in Hungaryand'Czechoslo­valda). The ultraleftists· limit thein­selves more modestly to preventingGaraudy from speaking, doubtlessuntil the dreamed-of day when· theycan use more "effective" meansmodeled on the Stlilinis1 ones. .", .

Of course; theworking-'cl88sbureau­cracies objectively' act in tluHnterestsof capital, primarilybychanne1ing'theworkers' 'periodic revolutionary'ex­plosions toward reformist outlets andthereby blocking opportUnities tooverthrow capitalism. They play thesame'role by influencing the workerson "a day-fo-cfay basis in favor ofclass cOllaboratiOn, undemrlriingtheir class CODsciOUSrle8S' With·ideastaken from the bourgeois world.

But the objective furl.ction·.and roleof these bureaucracies is not confinedto maintaining class peace. In pur­.uing their routinereformistactivities,they come in conflict with the every­day interests of capitalism. The ,wageincreases and social welfare lawswonby the refermists - in exchange for

their pledge to keep the workers' d~mands within limits thatdonotthreat­en the bases'of the system'-reducethe capitalists· profits somewhat. Thetrad~unionorganizatiollS' whiCh theylead inject the collectivep&weroflaborinto the daily relationshipsibetween thebosses and the worken.· And as aresult, these conflicts have ali alto­gether different outcome'from the pastcentury, when the strength ofthe tradeunions was slight or nonexistent,

When the capitalist economy is flour­ishing, the bourgeois,ie' is,wi~ing topay the price repreiJented by, thes~conceSsions in retUtn for' ·socialpe~~.'" But whim fl.1e'capifumt t!Crina.:my is in a bad way, these sani~ ~n~

celiSions rapidl! ?~omewi_~~r,,:!~bJ,et() the bourgeoISIe. Then, It ~. p:~ .~cRJ;litalists'interest.to elimin~~' Q1es~orga,glzations cQnipletl~ly,''ev~JJ, Jhemost' 'moderate a,nd refo~t_'oi1es.

The.very eXl$tence of the .u~~ns ~'COII\e5 incompatible wi9I theslirvtialof the ~ystem. ' ".'

.t',.

This shows the realnaturi!Cottthereformist bureaucracy in the w6r~rsmov~nt. This bureaucracy'<is-';hdtcomposed of owners of capil,HWhdbuy labor power inorder to ap~r&

priate surplus value. It is com~of salaried employees (of the w'orlten;o,ganizations or the' state) wh6v~~late and waver betWeen'tbe-camtP6fcapitiUand of the proletariaf,"~

times leaning toward One,S6n1etlri'l~toward the other, dependingEhl~particular interests· and the pressuresto which they are subjeC!ted.A:Waflbfacing the Class enemy, the:",~idworkers have every reason'fockJtheifutmost to force these bU~allclal8't6return to their camp. otherwtse( thecommon 'defeDse would' 'bel ~ai:lyweakened. ,,' !m.;!,;' .....

.." _ ,"" '').~~'ih:.,.:t·<

Overlookfug~eseeleu,I~6tiiY~~8leads. to the ,,-:orstofCIJ.~~~fh~,Tilewodters movement teameq J\.Wl *o~tscos( dpring the.rlse o'{ f~pi;~ttJ:iattime, the "genius" S~niOv,~~tbetheory of "Social Fascis~tA~~~r~gt() this theory there was ijo eptr~~ncebetween the "revisionist' $.q~~J);>emo­crats and faScists. It was' 'even pro­claimed thattbe Social,qemoctacyhad to be defeated be!?1Yf, ~struggleagainst the Nazis ~ould,~,~Q~

While the Social I>ernocratic . WidCommunist .workers,; (.ere 'happilybashing each other·sheadsin..... the

6

reformist leaders shared the respon­sibility this time equally with theirStalinist counterparts- Hitler cameto power, massacred thousands ofworker militants, and dissolved allthe workers organizations. Thus, hemade possible a temporary, if som~what embittered; reconciliation b~

tween the Social Democrats and theCommunists ...in the concentra­tion- camps. Would it not have beenbe~r, while not making any conces­siDQS., in the ideological' struggleagainst revisionism, to fight togetheragainst the Nazis, and prevent themfrom taking power?

On' an infinitely smaller and' l¢Sstragic scale, the situation in the Uni­versity can lead to a dilemma of thesiime type overnight All the left ten­d~ncies are fighting to gam recogm­ti<woftheir right toc~rryon"politicalactivities" on the campus. But' it isqu,itepossible that thea:dministrationwill take the incidents surroundingGaraiIdy's visit as a preteXt for'ban­~'llDYmore politicallec~res.What,ollier course, then, is there but to fightt~~ether to win minimum politicalfreedom in j:Qe university? Would itnot be preferable to respect the rules,of workers democracy froin now on;since they conform to the comm,oninterests of the workerS inovemenf andthe student cO;urontation movement?

In 1957, iIi response to the officialrevelation of Stalin's crimes made atthe Twentieth Congress of the SovietCommunist party (which he approvedof at the time), Mao Ts~tung stressedthe necessity of distinguishing car~

fully between' how to settle differencesamong the people- by persuasIon, d.~bate, practical exj>erience-an'd nowto proceed iri cOnflicts with the classenemy. Here he was omYbnpIicitlyreaffirmmgthe need to uphold work­ers dem~ra,cy"among the People."

B\lt this, dIsbctiop, ,~~~' meaningonly'it it'i$.~~onobjepiivecriteria:The capitaJults (~d jp. \ess industrial­ized cO\ln~i~,ii}.f! lap.di9rds) are theenemy.,The,~ple~1;fthemass ofprodu~.)Vhi~lhirworkers, and,in seniicolonial' ~Ou,ritries, the poorpeasants. ': ' .. J'-" :

If subjective crjteria ("Anybodywhodoesn'" supPort everyone of my tac­tical turns is • capitalist and a coun­terrevolutionary, even if he served aspresident oftbei~ple's Republic 'of

China and vice-chairman of the Chi­nese. CoIDIqunist party for twenty .years!") are suilstituted for these ob­ject;ive criteria, then you fall into com­plete arbitrariness. You end, ofcourse,by wiping out the distinction betweenwcontradictions among the people"an~wconflicts with the class enemy; ~at­ing the former more and more likethe latter.

Of course, it is impo,ssible to makean absolute and total separation be-

tween the two. Marginal cases arepossible. We advocate frank debatein meetings of strikers. We do notthink that we need restrict ourselvesto polite discussion with strike­breakers.

In every marginal case, however,we must distinguish acts (or crimes)from opinions and ideological ten­dencies. Aetsmust be· proved andjudged a~rding to clearly. estab-

lished, well-defined criteria of theworkers' interest (or after the over­throw of capitalism, of socialist legal­ity) so as to prevent arbitrariness.Failure to distinguish between actsand opinions can only result in ex­tinguishing workers deDlocnicy, low­ering the level of consciousness andmobilization of the workers, and pro­gressively robbing the revolutioniststhemselves of their ability to orientthemselves politically. . . . . 0

Section Two: Violent Factionalism in the "New" Left

[The June 1969 split in Students for a Democratic So­ciety· (SDS) resulted in several incidents of v~9Ience be-.tween contending factions, the Revolutionary Youth Move­ment ("WeathermanW

) and the Worker-Student Alliance (led

by the PJ;ogressive Labor Party). During the saDie period,ultraleftist groups made attempts to seize the stages atIlntiwar demonstrations, because of their political disagree­ments with the speakers or sponsoring organizations.]

1. Weatherpaon ;.J:ead."r fl.efends Hoolig~n Tactics

~rom the August ~ 1969, issue of The Militant

By Harry RingOne of the disturbing features of the

Panther-initiated United Front Again$tFascism conference held in Oakland July18-20 was the use of strong-arm tactics.People identified as members of the Pro­gressive Labor Party were forcibly ejectedfrom the audience. PLers and other dis­tributing leafets outside the hallwere beaten.

Concern has been expressed about thiswithin the movement by militants, bothblack and white. The concern, unfortlJAate­ly, has not been unanimous.

Writing hi the July 24 SDS New LeftNotes, National Secretary Mark Rudd­whose gall is apparently equalled omy byhis political obtuseness~ actually tries tojustify the disgraceful SDS role in this.whole business.

Rudd writes:"Before the start of the conference, the

Panthers announced that no members ofProgressive Labor Party or the Worm·Student Alliance would be allowed into theconference. The fIrst evening SDS members,acting with the approval of the three natioll­al secretaries, helped the· Plinthers identifyPL-WSA members, who were ejected fromthe auditorium.

"The next day, ill Bobby Hutton Memori­al Park, both the Panthers and SDSmembers and officers forcibly circled PLmembers trying to leaflet against the con­ference and against the Black PantherParty . . . In all cases requests were madethat the scabs leave; when they did· not.the necessar.y force was then used

"The struggle escalated the next morning/(SuildaY), when a number of PL membersJeafletipg in the park before themomingsession of the· conference were asked toleave, did n()~and then. were dealt within strong faSbion. 'TenPLers wound upinthe~hospital.w

. The enforcers'Appatently,.however, there are some·

peoplei.remaining in' SDS who havesuf­ficient, ;1'i!g~d" for. elementary democra,tic.

.. righbi. to,protest this.,. At an SDS caucusri.leetiDg~aJSunday·afternoon, Rudd re­ports,· the· Bay AteaRadical Student Uniongroup in Sps "~erely criticized" the Rudd.gang for their: conduct. According to Rudd,RS U forces,· poiIiteq out that PL had notbeen disNg~e>pf..theconference and·thehandling Qf th~':w!lSmore like a gang­like .velJ;<iett;. thm.l· politi.caL'; The RSUalso noted the1hOOnsiStency' of declaringthe need ,. for phySical war on PL whileacceptingwithout·politieal dissent the pre- .senceon:the conference platform of theCommunist Party "revisionists."

In response, RQ~eJ!:plainsthatthe·de­ciSion to expcl PL hom SOS. bad been"made at the convention" of 'the sDs inChicago and thatWfue deciSion had to beenforced." It·.. true, the declsionto .eXpelPLwas made "at' the convention.· Butit wasn't made by the convention. ThedeciSion to expelPL was made by theRood faction and its allies after they walk­ed out of the convention. In any eVent,Rudddoesn't attempt to explain how eithera decision "ofW or "at" an SDS convention

7

gives him the right to help organize goonattacks on people simply trying to at­tend an open conference to which all "anti­fascists" had been publicly invited.

Regarding the point that PL had notattempted to disrupt the proceedings, Rudd

. replied with a logic on a general par withhis intellectual honesty:. wOn' the second question, that of PL's

disruptiveness," says Rudd, "wepointed outthatPL's line when propagated' in themidst of the black comm1,lDity or in a massmeeting of elements intent· on unitingaga.inst fascism, discredits all revolution­aries because of its racist, chauvinist Doeon the black struggle." The implication,of course,is that black people shouIdn~t

be allowed to chose for themselves whatliterature they will read!

RegJiUding their adaption to the CP,the SDS national enforcer explains that thiswas really PL's fault! The leadership ofStudents for a Democratic (sic) SocietyweriHIO busy fingering and helping stompPLers that they simply didn't have timeto deal with the reformist CPo That, Ruddassures, will come after PL is taken careor:

If it were not such an ominous businessfor the movement, it would be hard to takesuch comments seriously. Petty-bourgeoisdilettantes like Rudd may be dismissedas Walter Mittys dreaming of being big,bad bureauct·ats like Joe Stalin. Butevena little scratch c'im lead to gangrene.

The .uSe of violence within the laborand radical movements is, unfortunately;

Ironically, it has been the present vic­tim; the Progrell8ive Labor Party,which,in the past several years, has sought toreintroduce such discredited hooligan meth­ods into the movement.

not at all new. Long before the MarkRudds came along, labor bureaucratS wereusing gool'lSand fingermen to eliminatedissident elements. And it was. the. useof such violence against politiclll· oppon­ents by the Stalinists in the IMOs thatmade it, a feature of radical, R9ptiCS for Revolutionary Marxists are not pacifIsts.several decades. .. '. But they reject the USe" of violence as a

In the USSR, Stalln;s'Iligb1Inarltblood means of resolving ideological strugglespurges wiped out llteraUy milliOllS, in- within the movement This.is not simplyeluding an entire generation.·of revolu- a m()ral stand, ,Power.. the Maoists liketionary leaders..All, of;c»urse, in the name to recall, grows ouloC the barrel of aof fighting ~counterrevC)1ut;iomiries." gun.' However, they forget, qx: have never

Throughout the, worldtbe Stalinilit CPs learned, that this is' OIllY a partial truth.smeared, slandered and physically at- Power, ultimately lies With those who havetac;ked their opponents. ideas that correspond to the forward mo-

The khrushchev revelations of 1956 tion of history. If power indeed restedconfirmed that Stalin's Moscow Trials, solely in the barrel of a gun, the Viet­which offered the "legal" justification for namese, fighting almost. with their barebrandmg opponents as "fascists," were com- hands againSt.the best-armed power inpletii'frame-ups. This brought a new wave history, would have been destroyed longof rev\llsion against gangster tactics with-~o~ .' .' _. .in the movement and such practices largely Marxists' have confidence that their ideassubsided. (Within the USS'R popular will prev:ail' within the movement, andprell8Ute forced ·sortle easing of Stann's' Ultimately in society as a whole. Thatpolice-state methods.). .is why they favor reasoned,' free debate

within the movement. They know they canonly gain from such debate. And theyknow that the only way signifIcant forcescan be \von to their positions is by gen­uine persuasion and that the best kind ofpersuasio.ncomes as the result of the con­frontationof conflicting ideas.

Those ,who resort to smear, slander. andvio~~ witbjnth.e movement ollly testifyto tl;ie impotence or bankruptcy of theirideas: 1'bis is so pathetically apparent inthe case of the Rudd group, which is noteven cllPable of ideolpgically confrontingthe patently false line o(Progressive Labor.

- ~< -.' - ~.

Violence within the movement is of valueonly to the capitalist rulers who use itto discredit the movement and, equallyimpoqant,. to justify their violence againstit.

It is the inescapable responsibility ofe\T!ill'Y jn~vidual and organization withintilf movement to speak out against theshainefUlhooliganism that Rudd seekst6justify. Socialist principles and practicalneceasitY demand it. .

Editorf~l in the August 22, 1969, issue of The Militant

The~e of,force as a substitute for free, deu\Qetatic disCus­'. sion hetweeho opposing tendencies within the ·radidl·rho~e-

ment !tas sharply escalated in recent months. ,Progressive Labor llasattempted on at least two occasions

to. phy~ically pr~vent the Revolutionary Y4\lth.Mo8~ent. (RYM) faction of SDS from.holding meetings. .. .

. '. The RYM faction physically.attacked· PLefs :for leafletfugat the Black Panther Partyconfetence in Oakland.

The Black 'Panther-,Party at that same't'tlnterehce attackedPLers, 'membt;!rs otthe IndependCnt$Ocl.'luflif'-Oub (IS-C),artdll?-embers .or'~,,>~rtacistfor han~jiig, '16ut}~eir leafletsil} pid;dic stree~$. '. .'. ,.' .... :, .. .'

, SDS,:( RYMljWd ~outh>AgaiJlstWar .J!di~ascism(YAWF)have stormed the platform and tried tCdake over the micro­pboneon atleast two recent occasiOn'Si an1idicalmeetings­the Student Mobilization Committee:;'d6PIDd'eowereoce in

. Cleveland on July 6, and the l\ug: ~~)t'rf«lYar tally of theNe"W York Fifth Avenue Peace Par~ae ~Wutee:. The attempt~d\l8e of force to s~,~renceswithi.n theradical.movement entails a verY'seriotl&'danger to the move:.ment as a whole. Such violence 'lietVes' only the interestsof the rUling clasS, which standSi'tb; gIllli the most by seeingits opponents devour each other inJnt~rnecmewarfare. DiVide

~'-- - ",' ,- : ' . - -., ' - - .:' - ')

and rule is as old as oppressionJtaeJ,t.: .Second, itpEovides everyagentiUt~;provocateurwith the

perfect climate in which to: operate, sowing even greater dis­sention, creating conditions,t'Gr"fver·rnote violent actions.When violence becomes the' normfOt dealing With politicaldisagreement withIn them(){fenierit~1'i~onIYhelps to justify,in the eyes. of the masses, the ,,-~?,lent. ptethods which theruling class uses ~gainst us.

8

l'hird, the, ruling class uses such violence tq discredit theradical movement, to reinforce prejudices and lies about us.

Once physical attacks begin, their inevitable tendency isto escalate. The violence becomes more extreme and thedamage to the .mQvement grows qualitatively. Onlyalnove­ment united and firm in its condemnation of the introductionof·' such methods borrowed from the ruling class. can stopthe' plague from decimating·the forces of the radical move­ment.

Every hmdency, organization or group within the working­cla$s, !tQciaUst or anth'lar Jnoveme~t ~t,S the n~r}o!ho~d

its own meetings tree from disruption, to distribute leaflets,sell literature amI spref;id ideas.

It is the eiitist ideology of the ruling class that claims theright to prevent the masses from hearing. or reading certainviewpoints, to prevent certain tendencies from holdiQgmeetings.·The- rulers depend on 'lies and distortions to maintain theirprivileged positions. The oppressed need to know and under~

stand the full truth to end their oppression.~tis in their interests that ideas be freely expressed.: 'It is

only lathe proeess,of confrontation ofconflicting views thatrevolutionary truths become defined, understood and acreptedby the masses. It is'otily through thiS process that distortionsand reformist illusion$lcan 'be destroyed~

The lISe of force'within the wOrking-classrilovement hasa 'long and instructive ~cord, and it· is crucial that the ne.wgeneration of revolutio'riary youth not ~gnore the lessonsof tWSbistory. Adherence to the principles ofworkers .demo­cracy 'has'a~ways been one of the'fund~menialprincipl~,of

.the 's9claUstmovement founded b'y, Marx and,EngelsandbUnt by' Lenm and Trotsky. The useof force'4f;is alwaysbeen ()~ of the, chief weapons of the trade-union bureaucraciesEili'dthi bureaucracies of the workers states: The trade-union

."leaders" resort .to goon squads to prevent workers fromhealihgand disCussing'C"dissident" pOints Qfvlew, while inco~ntnes like,the»USSR and China, the-Mreaucracy, SUJr

pre&seSrevalutidnary thought and revolutionaries in' thegu~9r:15UPI:l.i:~i;lng;,c~untkr-revolution." ,'. ", ,, It is' not $\1fP.1;is!ni that the groups whi~)lave ,begun, to

use (ore:e w~thiil the movement today - SP~c(RYM), PL,,BPP, YAWF'. 't4elJl),y Area Revolutionary Union- are alladmirers ofl.d&07Tset~,'a.nd to one)legr~,t>r anotherof Stalip. himself~ , " . , , .

EquaUyse-riou$. is, .the.ftiilure of move~,ent, publicationsl*ethe .Guardian and LfiJ,eratioJ/. News Service to take'noteof the growing tendanc~tOWi}.rd the use ofJor~' and condemnU. " ..,

We call upon the entire raOical and socialist movement toonce again dedare: ,for upholding workers democracy andto condemn any and all political groups resorting to attackson the basic, rights· of other teadencia' within the radicalmovement.

9

'''-J -.

Section Three: The Progressive Labor Party AttacIrs the Antiwar Movement

[The Progressive Labor Party, h~vingfailed in sectarianefforts to substitute itself for the ,broad ,movement againStthe Vietnam war, shifted in May 1970 t()ward attemptsto physically disrupt some of the leading organizati()ns

"in the movement incl~ded,in this section are articles abouta May 24, 1970 attack on the Student Mobilization Com­mitt~ and an attempt to break up the July 2-4, 1971co~ventionof the Natioiull Peace Action Coalition.]

1. ~ AHacks Meeting of SMC Steering CommiHee

From the June 12, 1970, issue of The Militant

Some ,55 to 60 people from the Pro­gressive Labo!" Party and SDS, orga­nized in a body, attacked and attempt­ed to storm into a national steeringcommittee meeting of the Stndent Mo­bUization Committee in Boston On Snn­day May 24 (see The Militant, June 5).This violent assault was repulsed andthe SMC meeting continued with itsbusiness.

The following fad sheet detailing theevents was compiled from individualeyewitness reports, a tape recording ofthe proceedings of, the meeting, andfrom information on the registrationforms that had been 6lled out by theparticipants in the meeting. It wasreleased by the Stndent MobUizationCommittee.

• • •The expanded national steeringcom­

mittee meeting of the SMC on May 24had been called to discuss the Maystudent strike upsurge and to chartthe plans of the SM C for the comingmonths.

The SMC national steering commit­tee is composed of one representativefrom each SM C chapter and one repre­sentative from each national organiza­tion working with the SMC. The May24 meeting was expanded to includeinvited representatives of student 'strikecommittees. Two hundred thirty-sixpeople registered as delegated ,repre­sentatives and observers from localand regional SMC chaptp.rs, studentstrike committees and other antiwarorganizations from every part of thecountry.

Nine of the people who registeredidentified themselves as members ofSDS or Progressive Labor Party. Allwere admitted into the meeting, ahthough none were delegated representa­tives from SMC chapters or .strike com­mittees. Although botbSDS andPLPare politically hostile to the SMC lindthe two national organizations do notwork witbthe SMC, one'each fromthe two organizations was admitted

as ,a delegated representabve. 'The ~spite the scufile in the hallway,others were admitted into the rrieetingthe meeting decided to let the two dele-as observers. gated," representatives from SDS and

John Pennington, national secretary PLR bade in. This would enable themof SDS, ,c()mplained aJ»out tQ.e regis- to express their point of view, buttration 'procedu,re ,and the ,presence of w~,"guard against the now-appar-SMC ushers, stating to t1l~ r.egistrars ~nt danger of disruption of the ses-that "this is the way that figJlb.! start" sions.This offer was not accepted.

At the meeting that wasjull~ getting "'gle, ,SDS and PLP group withdrewunderway Nat Goodman, who is atp Ule main hall, held a discussion,member of SDS and a candidate mem- and threatened to return in force.ber of PLP, approached 'the door and After the lunch recess, fearing a re-attempted to enter. He was asked to neWed. 'attempt to disrupt or break upfill out a registration form first, as ~'me,eting, many of the people ineveryone 'else had done. He refused '.attettd,~n.ce joined together to set upand attempted to push his way into a, d"n~e. Cooperating in this effortthe meeting. He was pushed back by v(.~~, iJ)d1viduals from SMC, Beacon:~ ushers at the door, but was not, lt~ '~#pport Group, Socialist Work-

ers ",l,»ax;ty, Citizens for ParticipationAt that, point, those members of SDS .' PgUUcS; Draft Information Center,

and PJ.P who had already beeq a~:'!'Ri~ers League, National Organiza­mitted into the meeting room nis4~~ ...ti~il··f~~ Women, Female Liberation,out They demandedtliatGoodW~n:.YietnaIilReferendum '70, Young So­be admitted withoutregi:stering',~iiL'i:ia'lii( Alliance, International Social­though they were famUiarwlth '1lle "1Sbi; and others.registration process and knew, he ,'The~'precautionsproved necessarywould be admitted if he registe~d: when~"after meeting at the PLP head­They began a scuffle With the ''SUe:' quarters, a large SDS and PL groupushers in the hallway in an atteDl'pf 'teturn.ed, to storm the meeting. Aboutto force their way in. They were qhick~ 5'5-60 were observed coming in anly rebuffed and restrained. 'organiZed group. They were met in

When the sc:uftle was over, those 'the hallway outside by the united de­who had left the meeting requested fense and the two groups stood facingto be let back inside. A :diseussion each other. John Pennington and Neiltook place inside the meeting: The Goldstein of the SDS and PLP groupincident >in, the hallway waS described were admitted to the meeting.and a history of PL andSDS88$aults Pennington addressed the meeting.on the antiwar movement was re- He gave his version of the earlierviewed. Most recently this included as- incident and demanded that all thesaults on an antiwar meeting at Co- people in the hallway be admitted.lumbia during the strike and two as- He finished his statement by sayingsaults in the Boston area: 1) At the that his group was coming in any­April 15 antiwar rally in Boston, a way, and that "if people attack uslarge' PLP and SDS group attacked on the way in, we intend to defendthe speakers platform; 2) On May 3, ourselves." He passed out a leafletafter threats had been made against to the meeting which referred to thehim for daya, eight members of PLP earlier incident and which stated, "Theand SDS attacked and beat Bob Bres- SMC' leaders are bootlickers of thenahan, an SMC activist, who had been ruling class who back the liberal pol­a marshal captain on April 15. iticians by using force against the rad-

IO

icals and communists. Today's attackwill not go unanswered."

Pennington left the meeting room,came out into the 'hallway and calledout to his group to come in. The uniteddefense would not let them through.The ·PL·P and SDS group pushed for­ward, and started fighting in o.nat­tempt to force its way in. A pitchedbattle ensued. Several people were in­jured. John McCann, the Massachu,setts 6tatewide coordinator ofVietnamReferendum '70 and a member of theSMC defense team, was pulled intothe other line and severely beaten bysix to eight people. His head andhands were' 'badly brUiSed, his nosewas broken,and an eye injured seri­ously.

Nevertheless, the defenders were d~

termined not to let their meeting bebroken up, and they.successfully keptthe attackers from accomplishing theirpurpose. When it ,became quite clearthat they would> be unable to force

their way through, the PL and SDSgroup retre,ated. The 8M C meefuigthen continued. with its business. Des­pite the disruption, discussion of thestudent strike upsurge continued andplans were. laid to build antiwar dem­onstrations on May 30 and the nation"al antiwar conference in Cleveland onJune 19-20.

The first oJ;der of business wh~n

the steering committee reconvened wasa discussion of the attack and theresponse to it. Two motions were'passed:

1) The' national. steeting committeecalls for a nationwide campaignagainst the use of violence within themovement and for the right of allgroups to hold, meetings without dis­ruption. This motion passed unani­mously.'

2) .The SMC also calls upon mem~

bel'S of SDS and PLP to repudiatethe ,attack made upon theSMC na­tionalsteeringcommittee by SDS and

PLP. This motion passed with onedissenting vote.

We, the undersigned, were presentat the SMC steering committee in Gam...bridge, Mass.; on May 24, 1970. Al­though each individual did not wit­neSs every event described. in the ac­count, our observations coincide withthis report, and collectively, we wit­nessed everything which took place.Signed by: Frank H. Adams, DraftInformation Center; Pat Connolly,Workers League; Gus Horowitz, So­cialist Workers Party; Mike Kelly, Bos­ton SMC; Jean, Lafferty, Boston Fe­male Liberation; Carol Lipman, SMC;Caroline Lund, Young Socialist Al­liance; John McCann, Vietnam Refer­endum '70; Katherine Page, BeaconHill Support Group; Susan Steward,National Organization for Women;DavidTe~sco, Citizens for Participa­tion Politics; Mike Urquhart, Inter'"national Socialists; Tommye Weise,SMC.

2. YSA Condemns Violence in the Movement", -- ~

From the June 12, 1970, issue of The Militant

In a statement released May 29 theNational Executive Committee of theYoung Socialist AUiance extended its"complete solidarity to the campaigninitiated by the SMC to eliminate theuse of violence within the movement."

The statement cited four principalreasons for concern about the use ofviolence inSide the movement: the need,for the entire movement to focus atten­tion on the real' enemy, the capitalistsystem and its ruling class; the.need to

reach masses of people, who are turnedaway. fro~.lJ?~tradical movement byseIf-d~feati~''ipternecine fighting;. theneed for ffee deinocratic discussion asthe only' erfu~~e'way ofsettlihg differ­enres' ViithUf the: movement; and theUnporta.nce of' the basic democraticright of aU organizations to meet, 01'­

ganiietheir actiVities and, in the last'an~lysis;t~.exist.

"Only a politically sterile ()rganiz~­

tion needs to resort to force to convince

others of its ideas, or can believe thatit can eliminate ideas, with which it dis­agrees through violence," tl;J.e. statementsaid. "Any group of, people within them,ovement mu~t have ~e right to hol,d,its own meetings and to decide howthey will be conducted - who will be in:vite";of what the agen<la will consisJarid any other matters on w~ichit

chooses to decide. . . . Ail differenceswithin the movement should be settlE!dpolitically - in debate and practice"::"not physically."

:i. \Vide Array of Groups Back SMC Against PL Attacks

From the June 12, 1970, issue of The Militant

By MIKE KELLYSocialist Workers Party· candidate

for governor of Massachusetts .BOSTON, June 1-'More than 120

activists representing 24 organizations'tonight endorsed the national StudentMobilization C(>-mmittee statement con­demning the May 24 attack onan SMC

meetitlg',:by Progressive Labat Pattymembers and their supporters inSDS,'and the· use of violence to settle politicaldifferences within the movement. Theyvowed to defend each others' meetings.

The resolution was passed unani­mously at the meeting, hosted by theAmalgamated Meat Cutters and Butch-

11

er Workmen of North America, Pack­inghouse Workers Division, LocalPll,P575, P616 in-'Dorchesrer, Mass.

John Craig, president of Local P575and vice-president of the state AF L..C10Labor Board; opened the meeting,chaired by Marilyn Levin of the SM C,by reading a statement from John

McCann; state coordinator of VietnamReferendum '70, who is recuperatingfrom' injuries inflicted on him duringthe May 24 attack.

McCann deplored the use, of violencewithin the movement .and called for aunited defense committee to be set up.Craigaiso volunteered to be thetrea..surer for theJohn McCann Fund. (Con­tributions to thjs fund" which will helpdefray the high cost of hospitalizationfor John McCann, should be sent to theJohn McCann Fund, clo Vietnam Ref­erendum '70, 19 Brookline St.,Cam­bridge, Mass. 02139.)

George Kontanispresented the na~

tional statement to the meeting, givinga history of earlier attacks by PLP andSDS.

The Revolutionary Marxist Caucusof SOS made a statement at the meetingrepudiating the attack, and asked foran amendment noting that not all eau­cuses or members of SDS supportedsuch attacks. The amendment whichwas accepted by the meeting said: "TheRevolutionary Marxist Caucus of SDS

repudiates gangster tactics within themovement and will support'all defenseefforts againsfviolent attacks."

During the· discussion, John Craigemphasized how important united de­fense efforts were, describing how heand .other union members recentlyhelped protect a United Farm -Workersorganizer in the area at many meetings.All groups present ·agreed that the mosteffective wayto stop suchattaClclhvas byinvolving other groups in'the defenseeffort. ."

The groups in attendence at the meet­ing were: the Bread and,Roses Collec~

tive at Boston University; the. BeaconHill Support Group; the Belmont PeaceAction Council; Boston Women United;Cha-rles S1. Meeting House; Citizens forParticipation Politics; Computer Profes­sionals for Peace; Draft InfQrmationCenter; Female Liberation; Gay Liber­ation Front; Local P575 AmalgamatedMeat Cutters and'Butcher Workmen ofNorth America, 'Packinghouse WorkersDivision, AFL-CIO; ". Mass. Strike;Mass. Lawyers Guild; North Shore

Committee to End the War in VietnamNow; Revolutionary Marxist Caucus ofSDS; Revolutionary Youth Center; Stu­dent Mobilization Committee; SocialistWorkers Party; Spartacist League; Vetsfor Peace; Vietnam Referendum '70;Workers Committee for a NationalStrike Against the War; Women's Inter­national League for Peace and· Free­dom; Young Socialist Alliance. Alsoendorsing the· statement was the Cam­bridge Phoenix, a local undergroundpaper. .

BOSTON - During a press confer­ence held here May 28 at-the Massa­chusetts Eye and Ear ~nfirmarywhereJohn McCann Was hospitalized, NobelPrize-winning Harvard biology profes­sor George Wald condemned the May24 attack on the SMC meeting. Otherswho participated in the press conferenceincluded John Craig. David TedescoofGitizens for Participa;tion Politics, andJohn Businger, an aide of the lateRepresentative H. James Shea, Jr.

4. PL-SDS Fail in AHempf to Break Up Antiwar Convention

From the July 16, 1971, issue of The Militant

By HARRY RING'NEW YORK-A s~ant feature ofthe recently"concluded NPAC conVen­tion was the declaive way It repulsedthe efforts of the Progressive "LaborParty to. physically disrupt the gather­tug" and prevent it from carryingthroUgh ita buslnesa;

NPAC was able to prepare for theattack. that occurred because PLP andita "SDS" brueJily made public in ad­vanc:e their Intentioo to carry throughan oqanlzed hOoiipn effort to dis­rupt the CODvention.

Several pubBc meetings were heldby PLP-SDS in Boston, where thegroup has ita main base. Th~ effOl1swere made to recruit a contingent to 'come to New York for the expresspurpose of preventing cel"taln invitedspeakers at the alated NPAC eonfer­enee from being beard..

lDiu.lly.· tile two apeakera selectedas PL targets were Senator Vanc:eHartke (J).,Ind.). a leading senatorialcritic of. the war. and Victor Reuther,international affairs director of theUnittcl Auto Workers. Then, DavidLMngaton, preaident of Diatrict 66

of the Uded·' Dfatributive Worker..was added toJ:l'L'a "v~boten"lIat.

Leaf1eta~ere dJatributed by PL-SDSin New Yo~k,urgiDg people to attendthe convention to prevent these peoplefrom speaking. ,O~ leaOe~as~rting that Hartk~did

not haVe the right to sp~ak becausehe is a liberal capitalist politlctan,urged people to attend the conventionand "SHQUT HlMDOWN!"

Another leaflet declared in part:"Hartke and Reuther shouldn't be al­lowed to apeak at all. These guys willscream f~om of speech: but thereshould be no freedom to speak forpeople whof ride .thecoatiail of theantiwar 'moVement for their own per~

aonal gain."A leaflet passed out at the conven­

tion the night of the opening rally'included a proposed list, of chants ,·tobe ~ while the, speakers deemedobjecUonableby fL were on the plat­form. The. concluding suggested chantwas:

"OFF HARTKE, OFF REUTHER.ETC."

Thisominoua rhetoric was escalated

12

in atill an()ther ProgressIve Labor Par-tyleaft'et, which declartcl~ , '

."Working people lothis country will11gbt until' every creep that NPACbuilda, and the NPAC Ieaclers them­Be"lves, are either behind bars, orburled."

Long record',Such "rhetoric cannot, be di,smissedas abnply 'tlle mouthings olmindIesafools. The Progressive Labor Pattyhas too long a record of hooliganviolence againtlf political opponentswithin the movem~t. -ThOBe who werein SDS during the faction strugglethat saw the demise of that organi­zationknow well PL'. penchant forphysical solutions, to politicali>rob­lems.

There was the case in 1969 of DaveKemnitzer. a san: Francisco antl-PLSDBer who ma:tied he was beaten inhis home by PL goons. The PL paperChallenge carried a ,sardonic semiac­knowledgement:

In 1967 In san Francisco, Militantsalespeople were attaclted by goonsat a PL-run open-air rally.

Marshals commended. Most of the convention particlpaJJts

were elated that so difficult a-pr.ovo­cation had been so well handled andwere somewhat'· aStonished when,aresolution was introduced at theopening of the Sunday sesSion pro­posing to criticize PL for its behavior

and to condemn the marshals for useof alleged undue force in removingthe disrupters. The effect of .the; reso­lUtion would havebeen to deny' NPACthe right to hold its convention.

The resolution singled out FredHalstead,who had participated active­ly ~ the Dla~al1ngfor special cen­sure.H8Iatead, the 1968 presidential~ndidateolth'; SOci~stWorkers Par­ty, has served as chief marshal atseveral major NeW York and nationalantiwar demonstrations.

This moti6n was' introd1.u:ed ,by amember of the QUaker ActlonProjecton, be4ll1f of a workshop held theprevious evening by membenof thePeople's Coalition f~r J?eace and Jus­tice.., ,

1le8P9!1d~ng to this motion, the con­ventIo,n prestding cOJQmittee offered amotion cOl;Jl~ending the .marshals foran extremely dlfficult job well done.

The «iDly open backers ofthePCPJworksbop motion were some 8¥PPort;.ers ofthat group.

Since meml)ers 01' the Young&­cialist Allian~ and Socialist WorkersParty were among ~ose ,who partici­pated actively in the marshaling, sev­eral of the various politlcaJ 'aecaa· at­tending the conference'permitted blindfactionai, animositY 10 influence theirjudginent in themat1er,and they re­frained from supporting the clearlyjuatlfled presiding committee motioncommending, the, manhaJa. The onlyone of these groupe that.upportt!d themotion and offered to help with de­fenR of the meeting was the WorkersLeague.

Members of the Sparticlat League'actu~y Joined with the PLersin thecU8ruption ,and were evicted with them.The National Caucus of Labor Com­mlttetW and International Sociali..took evasive positions.

a meeting without serio~'injury 10 Po~y held 1(,.cll*8 ·...tiJllt·1Qldanyone, and withtlie enl1re, process after a ,debate -def:idedit 'waU futnecarried thrpughin sucl1away _at to again storm the meeting, a.nd theythe meeting is able to continue. The ,limited themselves to picketing inatmosphere ofd!lIcipline was such'that front A few 'gained admission, butthe citypoUcehad no pretext to enter there were only minor incldentsdUringthe building. the final day·sSeBsion.

This was possib!e forsev~'iea­

sons: The. marshals had beeJi~care­fully briefed'inadvance, with ,a ~ngemphasis on the need to .~"oQlr the.absolute minimal forU! necessary todeal with disrupters. Theylargelysuc­~ed in doing this, despite the ex­ti:eme, ,Provocation of the PLer8~ 'l:'bemarshals even restrained themselveswhello' •• they reached the. doors, anumber of the evidild PLers".prayedthem-with cans of mace.

The eviction of the disrupters with­out bringing the meeting to an endw.as also possible because by the timemarshals did act, it was entirely plainto the audienCe, where the responsi.bility lay and why the action wasnecessary;

After the rally, a meeting of theNPAC Steering COl;Jlmitteevotedunanimously that th'ose who had di&­rupted the meeting not be perinit1edto return for the next day's session.,

In adopting the motion, the COlD­

mittee emphasJzed that the issue -ofpolilical exclusion was in no way in­volved and, that people were to bekept out only c;jn the basis of theirdi8riipftve activity and no one was tobeex~ded on the basis of theIr polit­ical views and associatiOJL In fact,a number ofPL-SDSers were permit­ted in, tbenext day and ,freely distrib­uted their literature. They participatedin the convention discussion, wherethey sought to ~end PL'sconductand persuade the 'convention tore­verse the deeisi()nto keep the disrupt­ers out However, a motion to endorsethe Steering Committee decision wasapproved by the Overwhelming major-ity. ,

That afternoon, the' PLers mas~outside the convention door andsought to storm their way iD, nurlmgrocks and bottles at theniar"shals as­sembled at the, entrance. Two, mar­shals were hit, requiring 'stitches forfacial cuts, but none were8el'ioualyinjured. The attaek· was suCcessfullyrepulsed and the doOn closed. Policethen appeared and, foiclblydispersedthe PLers from the street. '

On Sunday"norbIng, the PLers re-

13

Disrupters removedIt was then that the NPAC coor­

dinators decided that it would be im­possible to continue the rally if the dis­ruption was permitted to continue. Themarshals were instructed to removethe offenders from the hall

In a remarkable display of disci­plined restraint, the marshals, severalhundred strong, proceeded to take thescreaming, biting, kicking disruptersout The remainder of the audiencedisplayed equally impressive disci­pline, mostly remaining seated lUI thehooligans were being removed. It isreally quite unusual to see a hundreddetermined disrupters removed from

In New Yox:k in 1967, when PI,. ini­tiated a factionally ~ompetitivepetitionto a Peace Parade Committee antiwa'rreferendum petition, PLers set upon agroup of Parllde Committee petitio~rs

and threatened others..Last spring, in Boston, they attempt­

ed to disrupt an SMC steering com­mittee meeting, were ejected from thehall and returned in force for a tWo­hour pitched battle, which resulted inone antiwar activist partially losing!light in one eye.

When the auditorium doors wereopened for the NPAC rally, abouta hundred PLpartisans were llJDongthe first to march in. They immediate­ly attempted, to seize the stage but weremoved off it by a contingent of mar­shals. The marshals included mem­bers of District 65, other unionists,and volunteers from the NPAC con­ference.

Despite continuous unruliness anddisruption, the PLers. were permittedto remain in the hall as the rallyprogressed. At one point in the pro­ceediIigs, in an extreme effort to pla­cate the group, they were given aspeaker on the platform.

When it came Hartke's turn to ad­dress the rally, the PLers seemed nearberserk in their efforts to prevent himfrom being heard. Led by twopeoplewith electronically amplified bull­horns, they chanted, screamed andcursed. Despite the tumult, Hartkecompleted his address as the rest ofthe audience sat quietly and tried tohear him above the din.

Then, later, when Victor Reutherwas introduced, the PLers apparentlydecided to make a last-ditch effort toprevent him from speaking and theirfrenzy reached a new pitch.

Sqate _pport..,·()J ,PCPJ· 8O~~tolD4leat~}he1J; ..~teemept. with the.ork~p'in~1icm. ··One ap_er,~Uu:..•~otin, . if New York uDioDist, de­~ thatwhile"he'diapprGYedoitlut .•.ay the COllferen~" .."",1Dg l1lD,...._~~.·n~.lor,NPACto~.lt.rJght<tohokl:_meeting..... ·su'ppotled tJleDibtlOn'iC)'~mmeJl4

the mat8ha:1& .'. 'Ed""Bi~.. .. rep~_~t1ve of theUDttea :'E.leeklW Workeri,declared.Iit~ as .a" wltoQJst, ·he~~ theneed Ear seJf,.defeiiIe."Welihould :com,.Dltndth~ Dlar*h-,:.for what they did-,.':declated. -I think they acted wltli.~~e reatr~t"" .. W4CCOOl'dlaatora Jen-y GOrdon

....uth GapC8lbyapoke vlgoroue­Itdliaupp~ of tbe )IlotiOl,;to~om,.

Rl~ .th.eularshala,·.did Dan·S""...bet Of··~p~~~.eomJDJbie.

ThelCPJ .motlOn.nc~"'lJ•lItatterlDgof votC'adcf the motionto c~ei1d·th.marihldil .... ·adopt,.eel by ano.verwhe1mlug m_Jorlty•

Sectiorifour: The Young Workers Liberation League AfflJcks Student Rights

[The follo~~ng items deal with the attempt of the StaliJ;l,.· .. proved qnsuccessful, included a physical assault led byist Young ,Workers Liberation League to bar. the Young ..anational leader of the YWLL, Richard Hoyen, on WillSocialist Alliance from political activity at the Borough S~nley, a member of the YSA on the call1Pus.]of Manhattan' Community College. The attempt, which.

1•. YWLLLeade.r Defends Its ActionsFrom the February·2. '1'973, 'issue of The Militant

The following letter from Matty Ber­kelhammer, organizational seae-'tary of the Young Workers Libera.tion· League, appeared' in the .Jan.17 GUl;lJ"dian.

An item in the Dec. 27 issue of theGuardian raises serious questionsabout your journalistic hitegdty~ Itfurther shows' . the deterioration ofyour p6litictll. outlook and ,the'closekinshipo~ yoUr new~found~aoism

to T~ot,s~y'ism. .The article, "YSAMember Beaten­

which appeared in theMQvementc~lu.mn· falsely states· th~tRlchardHoyen, a member of the YWLLat Borough of Manhattan Commu­nity. College,. assaulted a memberoftheY.oJl:Qg~ocialistAllia.nce.This is a· sla~der. It is totally un­substantiated. What is the, sourceof .the Guarc;iian's information?From a YSl\,press reh~a,se? lsit.Guardian policyo:to quote Trot8ky- .ite pressreJea84!S. verbatim? Why .didn't the .. Gu~dia.n::bother. to check.the ~ccuracy of the story with H oy­en,the YWLLor the Third WQrldCoalitloDc; at ·BMCC, which is inthe leadership oftbe student gQV­ernment and Which allegedly' is; de­nying the YSl\, its .right to,fUn.c­tion,on campus?·

Does it matter to the Guardian

. that Hoyen js-,.an Asian youth whois being .•l~dered.,by the YSA?O~s it. matiel' to the Guardian that

.he is the coordinator of the U. S.Nguyen Van Troi Hospital Com­mittee, w~iCli' is raising funds tobulld a ';'cliUdten's hospital in Ha­J;loiaisan llct Qf· solidarity with thevictim1(~f'~U. S. aggression, . andthat. <u"e."rftotskyites oppose this.projec1. just a.{tb,ey oppose the sign­ing of the 9~point agreement to endthe war? ". '

.Th~ .9\i~dianlik~s to wrap itselftil J!iC~,cfQak,,::oJ tJi~ great defenderof tlie .third .world.. Aren't you in-

. te~e8tea··Ui:r.mding out ~e viewpointof the nil-d' Wodd Coalition at'BMCC, Which 'liasthe overwhelm­ing S'l1PPQrt.· of all students atBMCC,1>lack, Puer.to Rican, Asian.and..white, and has been engagedin a sharp political struggle with'the. racist admiWstration of BMCCfor several years? ... W~,· think. ,~at further investiga~

tion.J;-;vthe Guardian would reveal:1) ..that ,the. YSA, acting in. har"

mony, with the administration, ha.sbeen .pla.ying a thqroughly racistrole in trying to undermine the anti~

imperialist Third World Coalitionstudent go~nllientatBMCC..

2) that the YSA has not had its. right tQ. function politically inter-

14

fered with. They can still use schoolfacilities, issue leafleis, etc. As amatter of· fact, they are currentlycirculating their scurrilous anti-trea­ty material on the campus.

3) that the real issue in this dis­pute is not between the YWLL andthe YSA, as the YSA would have

. people believe. What is involved isa. mass rejection, by an entire stu­dent body and a. student govern-

.- . .ment, under third worl~ leadership,of the racist and reactionary pol­icies of theYSA.

We think the Guardian owes itSreadE:rs and Hoyen, the YWLL andthe Third WorId Coalition a publicapology for the unsubstantiated,slanderous statex.nents contained inthis article. . ,

Let's s~ th~.<iuardian apply theconcept of self-criticism which it soloudly fiaunts. Or Jis] the Guardianso motivated by anti-communismthat it is. willing to print falsehoodsas a substitute for ideological strug­gle?

The Guardian replies: We believethat the main question in this mat­ter is wheth~ or not political dis­putes on the left shouJ,d. be settledby violence. Richard Hoyen hasrefused to explain to us why hedisputes the aceount given by YSA

member Will Stanley, whQ says thata group Q~ studen.ts including Hoy­en physically'attacked him.

While the Guardian has m~de

clear its opposition to Trotskyismand its role in the antiwar move-

m.ent many times, the behavior ~ndpolitics of YSA is not the centralissue in, this situatipn.

2. Democracy in the Student Movement; WhereD()8s' theYWLlStand?

From the February 2, 1973, issue of The Militant

By JOSEPH HARRISand MALIK MIAHThe Young Workers LiberationLeague has fmally issued a publicletter concerning the denial of a stu­dent 'Charter to 'the Young SocialistAlliance and a physical attack on aYSA member.

The letter, printed in the Jan. 17Guardian, wa~ written by Mlltty Her­kelhammer, the national organization­al secretary of the YWLL. It harShlycriticizes the Guardian for printing.' a"false" news article about the eventsat Borough of Manhattan C~mmuniiy

College (BMCC) last November.Berkelhammer contends that' ,Rich-,

ard Hoyen,a national lead~ of theYWLL, did not assault YSA- ;meJDber

. , "j""

Will Stanley, and that "the YSA"h~s

not had' its' right to function' politfellllyinterfered with" at aMCC.

What are the facts? At the Nov.. 22Student Government Association meet.. 'ing at BMCC, the YSA's student char­ter was revoked; members of~_YSAwere apelled from the editorial,boiu-dof the Third Eye, the camp\J8 pew;s­paper; and YSA members w~e.>ex­

eluded from attendmg futurenlee~s.of tpe student government '

Richard Hoyen, who is the YWLL'.snational peace director and a coor­dinator of the Nguyen Van Troi Hos­pital Fund, placed these mdtions opthe floor. He motivated .them by call­ing YSA members "wreckers," "ma nip­ulators," "agents," and "counterrevolu­tionaries." He claimed that' the 'YSAposed a "political' threat" to the ThirdWorld Coalition at BMCC" whosemembers make up a majority of thestudent government.

At the student government meetingon Nov. 29,' the'YSA 'returned to ap­peal the previous week's decision. Theappeal was tabled, however., Soon af­ter the meeting, Hoyen and two othermembers of the Third World Coali­tion physically assaulted Will Stanley,tossing him to the floor an4 kickinghini in' the face.

The YSA' responded to thfise attacksby initiating a campaign against' the

use of violence to settle political dif- in trying to undermine the anti-im­ferences, and in support ot the YSA's perialistThird World Coalition stu­right to a charter. This campaign dent government at BMCC." (Empha­gained the support of many student, sis added.)Black, and Puerto Rican lead~s,andgroups in the New York area, as Despite its political differences withw:ell as support from around the coun- the, Third World Coalition, the YSA

has 'consistently defended the grouptry. ,As a result of this calIlpaign, one ,f~om administration attacks. In the

student government official informed past semester, the YSA supported thethe YSA before the Dec." 21' student Third W'orld Coalition against admin-.government meeting that its charter istration Attempts to deny it the seats"was never officially revoked.~ Just it won in tJ:le. student government elec~tbreedays earlier, however,. the YSA tion.: 'had been forced to take down alit- Duringtbe fight over the YSA char­erature table on the basis that it did ter, the YS1\. strongly opposed a movenot have a charter. by the a~~inistration to intervene in

What .does BerkeIhammer say about the' 'matter. An open letter the YSAthese fac~? He .says they iU"e fa,lse,serit to the adlJ1inistration said in part:a,~slap.der," and "totally unsubst~nti- "Because the Young Socialist Allianceated," 'but he presents no" alternative believes that all student affairs shouldaccount Most importantly, he ayoids be under student control.... and be­disCUS~in:g 'whether', the"" YWLL - sup'" cause 'we' oppose the administration'sports ,theYSA's" right tocRiIlpus ret'" intetVeningln the affairs of students,ognition'and <where the YWLL starids the ,YSA will not prepare any reportson the'us~ ofviolence-,within the rad- for, or have any meetings with theical and student movemeItts. administration on this lJlatter."

histl.:d,' Berkelhammer says, "What What ;about.'the "racist and reaction-is invo117ed isa mass rejecti(Jn by an ".-ry.' p'oilc~~ Or the YSA? Berkelham­entiT:estudent body and a student gov-,. mer tries, lQ equate racism and reac­ernme~'Wider third :w:orl~ leadership, "tion wlt;hany YSA pOsition the YWLLof. the 'ra~t,al}-d reactionary: policies- disagrees,;With. The YWLL, which sup­of the.YSA." (Emphasis added.) ports the' "peace" accords, says the

Iii ,it,. true that an "entire' student YSA is "attacking the Vietnamese" by~ody"".h~s rejected the YSA? The faCt, . refusing to support the demand thatbsthat more' than 300 stude~ts at Nixon sign ,the treaty. In addition,BMC(r~iP~d a petition supportinli'Berkelhalllnu~rmakes the ridiculousthe ,YSA!s right to campus, recogni~ claim tbatthe YSA opposes fund rt1is­tion. Campus groups such as'Black' ing projectS'for building hospitals iIi,Arts~SocJety Quisquiyano, Clrculc BanolBorieUa Baja (a, Dominican organl- The YSA supports Black, national­zation),"', Phi Beta Delta, 'the Christian ism, which.the 'YWLL opposes.' Thus,Fellowship, and other organizations YWLL D;lembers have called the YSAhave·also supported the YSA's tight "racist" for its strategy for Black lib-~o 'a charter. eration.

Infact, ..t the Nov. 22 meeting the The YWLL uses these absurd slan-majority 0( the student govermnent ders asa substitute for debating itsab8tain~",onthe qiotion to ,revoke real differences with the YSA. It hopes'the YSA'8,~arter. t()discredit the ideas of the YSA sim-

BerkelhaQlDler makes another'l$eri- 'ply by labeling them "reactionary."ous ch~ge ...gainst the YSA' thai is ~ addititlD, the YWLL has shownuntrue-He says, "tbeYSA, acting in ,tha,! ilis not opposed to ~sing physicalharmony with the admin~tration.has violence to intimidate those with whombeen, plaYing' ~ thoroughly racist role it disagrees. Such undemocratic prac-

15

tices are in the traditions of the Com­munist Party, which 'the YWLL" is 'inpolitical solidarity with. The use ofgoon-squad tactics by any organiza­tion is intolerable and .must be foughtby every critical-minded activislSuch .methods prevent free, open discussionand provide an excuse for school lid-

miniStrations and the government tovictimize radical groups.

The Berkelhammer lettel' completelyavoids answering the real questionsposed by the events at BMCC: Doesthe . YWLL support the right of theYSA to have a student charter? Isthe YWLL opposed to the use of phys-

3~ Reviving Old ladies

ical intbnidation arid slander to re­solve political differences' within themovement? .'

The. YSA believes that political dif­ference~ within the movement can onlybe resolved in an atmosphere of opendebate and discussion, free from anyfear of physical threats.

From theD ecember 15, 1973, issue of The ltfilita";t

· The Young Workers Liberafton League,' tlle Con:~1P.unistparty's youth organization, ..has organized a~ampaignto

. prevent the Young Socialist Alliance from obtaining:oificialTeeognitionat Borough of Manhattan Community Collegein New York City. One of the YWLL leaders is also·impli­

.' caled 'in' a physical attack on a YSA member on the same.' . f ,', -

· campus. .SuCh undemocratic conduct by an organization fha(claims

to be'soci8Iist is intolerable. YSA NationalChairmanAp.dy .}Wsehasdemailded that the YWLL repudiate these •• actJonsOy its members and supporters. So far they have r~~d. todo, so..' ." . , ,a. .

The.YWLL attacks are &ne of the consequeqees of a8tepped­up anti-Trotsky1st propaganda campaign presently .. beingwaged by the bureaucrats in Moscow ;andtbe Con:bnunistParty in the U.. S. Slanderous artlclestQ;at,haye apPearedrecently' in Soviet "theoretical" journals an4. CPUSA 'tnaga-

,', zines 'and newspapers brand Ttc.tskyism - including 'fiotskyist'70' organizationS like the Socialist Workers Patty and the Young

SoCialist AlUanceM,as.'''a vulgar weap(lIl of imperi~m and'reaction," '~,"coilnter~revolutionary elemeIit:'within the Le.ft,'an "advocate Qf b1fl'tant raclsm."and'an "enemy of peace.". A two-par~carti~em the June and July isSues of the CP's

· m'ilgazine Politi~41. Affairs~ entitled "Ttots~m: 'Left-Wmg'Voice of ~ction," concludes with the- admon'itibn tha.t "The.' sm.· .will ,nqt rea.l~its, bope of bee<>IIjing';(lie predottlpiantforceontheLeftIfW:W continue to be a ~oUJlter-:r~volutionary

·.sect. But what- tnuStalways be remembered .is tha;t Trotskyismwill never' disappear of its own accord.,Jt mu.st be fought."

The effect of these lies and the call to fight "counter-revo,.lutionary" Trotskyists. is to whip up an' annosphere amongyoung CPand YWLL members that any, mea.sures againstthe SWP, and YSAare justified if they ·canget away withthem.'This hooligan conduct against soCialists; 'with whom theydisagree barks back· to ,the 19308 and 1940s,' when suchmeasures were the' stock:.in-trade of the StaliniZed CommunistParty. Attempts to revive these POisoIlOus:methods and totry to employ them today will not succeed in intiniidatingthe SWP, the YSA, or any other critical-l11i,nded revolutionists. .Suell tactics will backfire' and expose t:b.e true' nature of theCP andYWLL's bankrupt politi~.,which' are subordinatedto the policies of the' privileged bureaucracy' in the USSR.

16

Sedion Five: Defending the Movement Against a Sectarian CRampage

[The National Caucus of Labor Committees is one ofthe sects that emerged out of the splintering of SDS. Or­ganizedas a cult around ils leader, Lyn Marcus, theNCLC launched an effort in April 1973 to "mop up"the Communist Party and ofuer leftists. In response,: theSocialist Workers Party organIZed united efforlsto defendthe Communist Party against attack. Frustrated in itsefforts to break up meetings, the NCLC turned to sneak

attacks against individual members of radical groups.This called for a change in tactics and, in addition tomobilizing the left against the NCLC's hooliganism, theSWP and other groups called for the prosecution of theattackers. Evidence had piled up, in the meantime, thatindicated that police agenls were active participanls inthe NCLC rampage.}

1. Labor Committee Goons Attack the YWLL

From. the April 27, 1973, issue of The Militant

PHILADELPHIA, April 14 - On Wed·nesday, April 11, a group of 12 to15 people. organized by and includingseVeral membetsof the National Cau­cus of Labor Committees (NCLC)~

attacked members of the Young WQrktera Liberation ~eagu~;_{YWL,[JatTempl~ University here. ,

Eyewitnesses report that the aitack~

ers ustid'i~a.d pi¢ll and other"\iieap.. .ons. Six' 'of the injured requirednoBipital treatDtent'Aceotdiilg'to the-Com­munist .Party's Doily World. of- AprU13, both Steve RasD1ussen all~Ed

Aguilar sufferedbrok-m,noses; RobinGoldberg suffered .8 b~oken rib;WaldoWoods had an eye injury; Robert~ulJ:­

tin suffered facial' wotinds &ndpOs"siblya fractured jaW-;anet- 'Hm MeYtft'~

son had facial injuries.

This attack follows a series-, ofthreats by the ~CLC 10 pby8icall)destroy the Communist Party a,nd~

YWLl;.. .The course on which the NCLC has

embarked poses a threat to tbeen..tire radical movement. Th~ absurdityof this small sect's pretensions to "de­stroy" the CP and the YWLL in noway lessens the grave danger posedby the introduction of the tactics ofviolence into the movement.

The capitalist press in Philadelphiahas already seized on the incident,devoting extensive'· coverage to it inan attempt to discredit all radicalsas goons and thugs. There is alsoa danger that the NCLC's ga.ngster­like tactics can be', used by the uni-'versity administration and' the copeto justify measures-directed at othergroups on the .left, and to restrict civilliberties and political activity on cam­pus. NCLC'sviolent acts create an

, !.

atmc.phere 1hat f.aeilitates the workof police agents, whose aim is to weak­en and destroy aU r,adlcal groups.

The NCLC has· been in a factionfight withtheCP and the YWLL withinthe National Welfare Rights Organi­zation (NWRO). Recently a segmentof theNWRO including the NCLCbroke away and held . a conventionto form a new organization calledthe National Unemployed and WeI­fare Rights. Organization (NU-WRO).The 'Coalition to,Defend the NWRO,Which includes theCP a:nd YWLL,denounced the split as an attempt "todivide and ;destroy NWRcr and asa ""racisLmovement operating underthe<pr~textofadvoCatingchanges forthetiavernots/'

Following- -the NU-WRO foundingconvention, held at Tem:ple, the NCLCescalated 'their'JactiolUll warfare farbeyond, the ,limits, .. of political discus­sionand. ,debate. NCLC began top\\ysicelly threaten the CP and theYWLL. An editor.ialappeared in theApril 9-13 New Solidarity, the newS­paper of the NCLC, under the heading"Death of the CPUSA.", 1!he editorial announced th-a1 the CPwaspolitlC&nY "dead"' and that theNCLC b4l~ "the unique right and ob­ligatIon to destroy. the last vestige oflefi.hegeJDOIlY of the CommunialPartyin ,tbe, U. S..A. today. And that is pre­ciSely .wA;ai-..e are about to do." TheedifotialJJtates tR-atthe NCLC hasthe "awfWresponsibUity" to organiZea mass force' within five years- thatwould be capableofinstitu~"work­

,ers' governments throughout NorthAm,ericaand Western Europe."

Seeing the C'ommunistParty as anobataele mcarrying out their' "awful

17

respob81bility," the New Solidarity ed­itorial states, "Immediately, readerswill obtain a taste of our ruthlessnessin the way we proceed to mush offthe Communist Part)'.". In the following issue of New Sol­

idarity an article called "Operation­Mop- Up; The Class Struggle Is ForKeeps" explained more clearly theplans of NCLC. "To implement oureditorial policy of last week" we will·enter CP~YWLLmeetinJ{s. conferences,I:allies, classes, etc. to confront the par­ticipants with the CP's allianee withPhiladelphia fascists to help Nixon de­stroy the Ma:rch 31 Philadelphiacon­vention of the National Unemployedand Welfare Righis' Organization.These meetings or &therevents willnot take place unless their participantsfbost condemn the class treachery ofthe CP leadership."

It was in the eontext of 'these se­rious threats of physical violence thatthe attack on April 11 took place.The Third Wodd Solidarity Coalitionof Temple University held a rally OJ]

April 11, attended by about 100 peo­ple. An NC-LC member approachedTony Monteiro, a leader of the CP,and tried to s.ell him a copy of NewSolidarity. Monteiro tore up the pa­per, slapped the NCLC member, andpushed her down.

Another NCLC member approachedthescuffie and was knocked into anearby bush. Members of the NCLCthen left the rally. The Philadelphia7Hbune quoted Monteiro as saying,"It's true that I pushed the girl down,but she kept pushing her paper inmy face and threatening me, sayingthat 1 had five days to go."

The NCLC has sought to utilize

this action by Monteiro to justify itsattack on the YWLL, but their publicboasting about their attac}[ as partof "Operation Mop- Up" demonstratesthe.spuriousness of this assertion.·

After the rally, a group of people,including several· members .of .theYWLL, went tathe YWLL ()ff'lCeinthe .Student Activities Ceilter. 'Sl\ortl.Yafter 1 p. m. the NCLC brutally at­tacked the YWLL members,

NCLC claims that they went to theStudent .Activities Center to talk tothe YWLL and that a :memberof theYWLL "shoved a knife down. thethroat· of a Labor Committee'member- ripping his :tongue."

Harvey McArthur; a member of theTemple Young Socialist Alliance andSocialist Workers Party candidate forcity controller of the city of Philadel­phia, witnessed the attack and sayshe saw no knife.

He states that "the NCLC· rushedinto the offices, started beating. peopleup; and then rushed out-the wholething took 'about five minutes. H theycame ·'to talk' as they claim, theywouldn't have come armed with clubsand pipes." McArthur also says thatJ08e Torres, a leading NCLC mem~

ber; was seen directing the attack ontheYWLL.

Accord~. to· the April 13 DailyWorld, "The injured individuals andthe Temple chapter of the YWLL .in­tend to press criminal charges againstthe perpetrators of this vicious' attack."A warrant has been issued 'for thearrest of Jose Torres, and one NCLCmember has been arrested.

The Disciplinary Committee of theStudent Affairs Committee held hear­ings on Friday April 13 to gather

testimony and make a, reco"'lI~~da~ .tion to' the" administration. Severalmembers of the Third World Solidar­ity Coalition, the Attica Brigade, and.Professor Zelnick of the English De­partment testified in agreement withthe YWLL'sversion of the events.

The ,Disciplinary Committee, backedup .by the administration, then votedto prohibit the NCi.C from furtherpolitical activity on'campus..

The campus community has reactedvery strongly against the NCLC ac­tions. An editorial in the Temple Newssaid that "if th~ .National Caucus can­not tolerate the free exchange of ideasamong students, then the Universityshould not tolerate the NatiOnal Cau­cus. on campus." The editorial calledfor revoking the charter of NCLCat Temple.M~t students on camp.us feel that

the NCLC bears responsibility for thisvicious attack. Many radical studentsare ~oncerned that the administrationwill use the attack to try to liInit po­litical organizing and other' civil lib.erties on campus. The administrationhas already begun that process by re­stricting the rights of nonstudents tocome on campli8. On Thursday, April12, for example, members of the BlackPanther Party were kicked off campuswhen they . tried to solicit funds fortheir Breakfast for Children Fund.

The National Caucus of LaborCommittees has distributed a leafleton campus about the attack. The leaf­let admits and tdes to Justify the at­tack, and promises more of the same.It states: "We have warned the CP:the CommunistParfy has crouedclass lines for the last time. Withintwo montha,1ll'ewlll de8troy'~Com­munist Party. as a political brgam-

aation. That is the reason for the 'me­1~' on Wednesd'ay.·

The NCLC has escalated its.epithetsto a hysterical pitch: "The CommunistPax:ty, allied with the poverty piDlpswho 'speak for the community' butorganize ~ainBt it, with the faselstEd Schwartz and the Nixon juden­rat ageJlCY Philadelphia WRO•..."

The pollcypf the NCLC to physic­ally attac:k. the Communist party· andthe YWLL is being carried out else­where .as wen. In New York City,for example, the Daily World reportsthat in the past two weeks the NCLChas attempted to dlsrupt a May Dayplanning conference and has harassedand threatened Communist Partymem~rs at the Jefferson Bookshop~the W.E. B. DuBois CommunityCenter in Harlem.

APRIL1B- The National Caucus.01. Labor Commiffees "as esca:­latedits campaign 01 intimidationagainst those who disagree withthe".. Copies of the April J6 sup­pleljtent to the f\iCLC newspaperNewSolidar~ty were posted atthe. entrances. to the oHices 01the Socialist· Workers Party inPhiladelphia and Lower Manhat­Ion los' night. The supplementcontoins a cleor threat to all whodeiendthe right 01 radical groupStoltold aAd Jefend their views:"11 .other socialist organizat;cmscross the line Dnd activelyioinlIIe :CP's allianeewith Nixon andthe fascists in the name 01 'work­ers democracy, ~" they will betreei~d similarly/'

2. Temple University YSA Urges United Defense of YWLL

From the April 27, 1973, issue of The Militant

The fonowing statement .Hmadeby the Temple UniverSity YoUDgSo~iaIist Alliaaee.

The Young Socialist Alliancecondemns the recent physical at­tacks by members of the NationalCaucus of Labor Committeesagainst members ·of the Commu­nistParty and the Young WorkersLiberation League.

The entire movement must cometo the' dd'ense of the CP and theYWLL againet· such hooligan at­tacks.' We mu_stand in solid sup,- .port of the 'rights of all "Witbinthemov-.ent to carry ouftheir poIit..,jeal ..~without· fear oflnthri~

idationor violence from othergr9UPs.

Such VlolentatPlckshave noplacewithih the ·student ~radi-

18

cal movement and must be rejectedasa means of sdtling politicaldisputes. We must he able to eon"sider and discuss all ideas in anatmosphere of free debate and <Ii&­Cussion. ..It . is only. through tliisopen ~change of· ideas that theiSsues and difIer~cesfacing themovement can be clarified.

'. The use of violence as a means

of "resolving" debates plays intothe hands of the administrationand cops by lending credence totheir slander that the movementis basically violent anddestructive.The atmosphere created by suchtactics can also create fertileground for police agents and pro­vocateurs in their attempts to de-

stroy radical organizations.The administration at Temple

University has already begun touse NCLC's attacks as a handleto place restrictions on civil liber­ties on e,ampus. On April 12, forexample, NCLC's actions wereused as' a pretext for excludingnon-student members of the Black

3. Repudiat.e NCLC Gangsterism

Panth~ Party from campus. Wemust oppose all such restrictionsby the administration.

The Young Socialist Alliancecalls on all radical and studentorganizations to condemn NCLC'sattacks and to repudiate the useof such tactics.

Editorial from the April 27, 1973, issue of The Militant

The gangster-like tactics the National Caucus of Labor Com­mittees (NCLC) used in its attack on members of the YoungWorkers Liberation League (see story on page 9) constitutea threat to the entire radical movement. Attacking with pipesand clubs, the NCLC thugs sent six YWLL members to thehospital. ,.' ,

The NCLC openly states that it intends to continue suchattacks, publicly. proclaiming their intention .to "bury" ..~nd"pulverize" the Communist Party and YWLL. In an April16 supplement to their newspaper, New Solidarity, the NCLCthreatens to "treat similarly"· any other socialis~organizationsthat "join the CP's alliance with Nixon and the 'fascists in the

.name of 'workers democracy. '"These .' methods must be c9ndemned The use of violence

within the radical movement aids no one but the ruling' class.If attacks such as the one against the YWLL are alldwed 'tocontinue, they will be used 'against other organi~ations, as'the Labor Committee itself has already threatened. .

Violent attacks within the movement threaten' the very rightto organize, to presept ideas; a1;l.dto win others to those ideas...Movement groups face enough limitationSQJl these rightsfrom the rulers. of this country without haying toalao facesuch assaults from within the radical movement.

The NCLC attempts to justify its hoodlum attacks by la­belling the CP and YWLL as "fascist" organizations. Suchuse Of the word "fascist" to excuse physical attacks on groupswithin the socialist movelnent should be repudiated by everyorganization committed' to ,democratic rights for' working-class otganization~.' . . .

The NCLC's goon attacks are antithetical to the aims andprin~iples of the' socialist movement. Socialists support thepractice of worke~ democracy - that is, the concept that th~

way to solve differences within the working,-class movementis through free and open debate and testing of ideas.

The use of violence' within the movement, on the other hand,makes it possible for the ruling class to discredit the left asantisocial sects fighting 'amongst themselves.

In "addition, these methods create a perfect atmosphere forpolice agents whose aims are to destroy the entire movement.Agents-provocateurs would like nothing better than to s~

radical groups resort to armed attacks on .each other. 'The.work of, government agents goes much easier in such anenvironment.

The Militant calls on all groups and individuals whQ .sup~

19

port basic democratic rights to join in a campaign to re­pudiate the National Caucus of 'Labo.r Committees and theiruse of violence against organizations they disagree with.

We call on all groups 10 reject and condemn the use ofphysical attacks to settle disagreements within the movementAnd we urge all supporters of democratic rights to come tothe defense of the CP, YWLL, and any other group whosemeetings, members, or offices are attacked by NCLC hooli­gans,

4. NCLC Hooligans Attack Candidates Meeting at Columbia University

From the May 4, 1973, issue of The Militant

Chaitkin presented an incoherent andfrenzied tirade against the CommunistParty 'and Rasheed Storey.

This reporter talked to several peo­ple at the meeting who have attendedNCLC public functions recently. Theyindicated that they had never beforeseen ~any. of the NCLC· members atlast night's meeting. These particularmemlJers looked the most like thugs.TheY were the ones who led the shout­ing and the charge on the stage. It-is clear that the NCLC' s public pol­icy of physically trying to eliminateradical organizations like the CPandthe SWP has opened the door for po­lice agepts and right-wing scum.

By DOUG JENNESSNEW YORK,April 24""""'"':A~oqt60

hooligans from the NationalCaucusof Labor Committees (,NCLC)unsuc~

cessfully tiled to storm the platformat a meetiDg'of mayoral :candidatesat Columbia UniversitY ,last nig,ht.This was, the most seriou~in.the r.e:cent series of. physical attack. theNCLC QasiilUnched against the'Com­munistParty anq. the f)ocialiSt Work­ers Party.

The NCLC hoodlums were prev.ent­ed from physically harming State As­seml?lyman, Albert Blume~t.h~ cf,)D­tender for the Democratic DOfDi~~i(m;

Rasheed. 'Storey, . CommunjSt .r,arqcandidate; anCl JoannaMi~, SQ~,

cialist WOJ;kers~artY candJ,date 'forcity council president who w.as speat~

ing for Norman Oliver, ·SWP cahdl­date for mayor.

Members of the -SocialU!t WorkersParty, Young Socialist Alliance, anelthe Communist Party, as well as someColumbia Universitystlldent$, defend-,ed the platfopn. . _

The NCLC goon$, hpwever,. weresuccessful in· breaking up the meet­ing. Armed. with .clubs, num-ehucks(jointed sticks), and brass knuckles,'they started to rush the stage imme­diately following a speech by-TonyChaitkin, the NCLC mayotal candi­date. Chaitkin was the rust ~eaker.

The NCLC thugs pulled clubs outof their jackets, 'picked up. chairsi andstarted clubbing their way to-the plat­form. They were confronted, however,by 75 to 80 marshals.whow.ere.pre­pared .to defend the· stage. After. apitched battle lasting about seven Of

eight minutes, th~ NCLC,th.ugs ret1'~t­

ed, taking their, injured with them.Six victims ofllie NCI"C assault re­quired medical treatment. They areWayne Glover, Craig Gannon; Jack

Lieberman, Tom Tilitz, Nat London,and Jesse Smith. Tilitz was hospital­iled overnight before being released.Noonewa~seriou~yi~ured.

During the' few .days prior to themeeting the, NCt.C distributed a leaf­let entitled "'Whither Rasheed?" warn­ing that they would attempt to breakup last night' 8 meeting and physicallyattaclcStorey. 'The leaflet reads' inpart: "With ,the CP hacks unable tohold ptibJjc;~eetings or to orgallize,in terror of the YWLL [Young'Work­ers Liberation League] membershipenraged at yet an:9th~ sellout, in ter­rorof Operation Mop-Up, there re- .maips only 1 question:'''H $tof~show8up Monday night,can' his fast-sinking mayoral cam.· Protests against the NCLC's gang­paigp'be buoyed up by anything less 'Ster-like eampaign are beginning tothan 'several dozen 'husky workers' be regIstered. Before last night's ,at­

,employed b'y the N, Y. P. D. INew York' tack, a, stateIt;1ent strongly condemn­';Pollee Department]?" ing this hooliganism had been signed

Attempts to convince the organizers by Annette Rubenstein; Marxist liter­of the meeting, the Columbia Unj~er~ ary critic; Nat Hentaff, Village VoicelIi~ stu~enL~p'ar~,of'Mana.gers, .that columni$t; .Norman Oliver., SWP may­t~lJ;, ~a,; .,~ 'Serlous threata.nd .that oral candidate; Jim Ostroff, editor ofNCLC . disrupters should be excluded the Queens College Phoenix; Jack New­ironillie'\1lteting, were unsuccessful.. garten, New York University SocialA~~t' 20miiJ.ute$ b~oJ:'e the meet- Detnocrats; Marshall Whitman, NYU

ing begaJ;l,t,heNC~C.l1ooliganscame Radical Zionist Alliance; Jim Fitzer,into the meeting .togetber. One altba pre$identof Hunter School 9fGen-.th;ggscarried some long' clubS. cQn~ eral 'Studiesstudeilt government; andcealed til a blanket..' One of the de- others. ,fenseleaders and the organizers of In an editorial in its April 25 issuethe meeting persuaded him' to leave the Guardian alsQ $tated that itbefore the meeting began, Other NCLC . -"strongly condemns the physical at­thugs wore,dngsover leather gloves.' .tacks ·and verbal threats against the

When $to~W .aJ:'riY.ed, Jlle N«L.C.. Communist Party and its, a(flliatedhoollgansstaded" ser~ng, "~ab! groups by a ·handful. of. people ca1l'­Scab!'" In' their fr@zy. some of them ing theJJ1selves the National CaucusyelledQUt" rigJ;lt-wing,. epithets like of Labor Committees.""Commie scab! Commie scab!" . Sincelast night's atta~ a campaign

Others' screamed that storey was a has been launched at Columbia Uni"fascist atid h1 cahoots, \ritli Philadel- versity· tagel as' many organization~phia Mayor Fra~Rizz9. Some of as possible to proteSt this outrage.them continued their yelling even while A joint statement is being eiiculated

20

calling on "groups and individualswho support basic democratic rightsto join. in a campaign to repudiatethe NCLC attack on Monday night'smeeting and their use of· violence inth e movement."

So far it has been signed by MarkKirschner, Columbia Democratic Cau­cus; Rebecca Waters, editor of Bq,r­nard Bulletin; John Buddenholtz,United Farmworkers Support Com­mittee; George RobiIison, Student Lib­ertarhln Action Movement; Rob Mc­Cauly, member of Community -Ser­vice Council; Rudolfo Orapez, Colum-­bia OWL; Arlene .. Abadlain, SfudentAssembly; Arlene Rubenstein, YoungSocialist Alliance; Gail Robinson; Au­ra Riviera;. Beverly Copeland; andKathleen Graves.

Joanna . MislUk, speaking for 'theSWP, told The Militant that. "th~re areimportant lessons to .be drawn' fromthis attack at Columbia UBiversity.One is that. even though the NCLCdid not achieve its main goal of beat~ing up the speakers, it broke -up themeeting. This was a defeat for theright of political candidates to expresstheir 'views and for students at Co-

lumbia to hear 'those views,"The only effective way to prevent

this undemocratic disruption is to ex­clude the NCLC thugs from meetings.They have only one purpose, whichthey have publicly admitted and. dem­onstrated by their· actions, and thatis to break up the meetings."

She went on to say that no amountof pressure from the audience can de.ter armed hooligans who have thisaim. In order to keep the meetingsopen to those who want to hear thespeakers, it is necessary to' organizedefense· teams to prevent disroptersfrom entering the meeting hall.

"Another lessori;1f. she explained, "isthat no section of ,iheradical move­ment is immune from these attacks.This. makes it imperative that all in­dividuaIsand organiZations who sup­port democratierights join togeth~

in mobilizing the broadeM possibleprotest against the NCLC's hooligan­ism.. "Despite political differences, the en­.tire radical movement should be alert­ed to the danger of this violence andcoOperate in isolating the NCLC. Onlywhen the NCLC recognizes that the

5. Daily World Falsification

entire radical movement opposes .itsactions and that it cannot bretik upmeetings will it be deterred from itsvicious campaign."

A leaflet headlined "You will notgoon for the CP!" and$igned bythe National Caucus of LaborCommittees was passed ouf April24. It concludes with an explicit"warning"to the Socialist WorkersParty, saying, 'When you did allthe fighting for the CommunistParty 'at the Monday mayoi-alforum, we held back-we gaveyou a mild warning.• , .. Butshould you repeat as goons forthe CP, we will put all of you ;nthe hospital; we will deal withyou as we are dealing with theCommunist Party."

This threat underlines -the im~

portance of a broad defense Ofthe right of radical organizationsto function in the face of NCLCgangsterism.

Editorial from the May 4, 1~73, issue of The Militant

In the current campaign of attacks by the National Caucusof Labor Committees against the Communist Party, YoungWorkers Liberation -League,and other radical groups, the'Socialist Workers Party 'and Young Socialist Alliance. havebeen in the farefrontof the light to stop these hoodlum tactics(see page 5). ~pite Political differences with, the CP, the sWPhas helped d~fend democratic rights in the movement, as inthe case of the recent NCLC attack at Columbia University.

Thus itwa~ especially- abominable to seethe column byMorris DavisinJ:he ~prfi 21 issue of the Daily World, Com­munist Party newspaper. :Davis atteinpts~o link the NCLCgoon tactics with th~ Trotskyist movement, saying. that -"inthe 40s the main disrupters were the Trotskyites, followersof Leon Trotsky." (Davis rehashes a number Of other lieslong since discredited: that the Trotskyists have ~uPI>osedlybeen union wreckers in the service oIthebosses and racketeers,and that theTrotskyi~ts- the· first victims of the Smith Actfor their revolutionary socialist opposition to World WarII - were "fifth columnists of the fascist Axis powers" dur·ing the war.)

The attempt to Unk.Trotskyist organizations - the SWP andthe YSA-with the NCLC attacks is outrageous,as is obvious.to any honest person who has witnessed-the .role of th~ SWPand YSA in answering-- the NCLC's re{:ent attacks. The NCLC

21

----------- -c--=~=~,.=====_""""'~ _

goon methods have nothing whatsoever to do with Trotskyismor the traditions of the Bolshevik Party led by Lenin andTrotsky.

The consistent record of the SWP in defending democraticrights within the radical and labor movements is well known.

Morris Davis' c'olumn is an attempt to cover up for thosewho did introduce violence into the radical movement: theStalinists and the Stalinized Communist parties throughoutthe world. The hoodlum methods used by these parties wereiearned from the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union,a bureaucracy that could only maintain its parasitic existencethrough the use of torture? frame~up trials, executions,assas­sinations, and secret police terror.

Just one example of the extent of these terror methods wasKhrushchev's admission in 1956 that in the late 1930s Stalinexecuted 70 percent of the Soviet CP's central committee electedin 1934. To this day· the heirs of Stalin in the. Kremlin mai~­

tain a police state in which, all political dissent is outlawed.. Trained in this tradition of using police-type terror to deal

with poiitical opposition, Stalinized .parties throughout theworld have used the same tactics against political opponentsto the degree that their strength allowed them to get away withit.

When those who opposed the degeneration of the Russianrevolution under Stalin were expelled from the U.S. 'Com­muni~t Party in 1928, CP goons repeatedly and Victouslyattacked meetings of the newly organized 'revolutionary so­cialist movement. CP thugs also attacked people selling TheMilitant on the streets. -

During the 1940s Trotskyists and other militants in Europewere executed and . assassinated both by the fascists and bythe Stalinists. Trotsky himself was assassinated by an agentof Stalin in 1940;

The systematic use of Violence against the American Trotsky­ists by the followers of Stalin abated only after the Trotskyistsshowed they could mobilize broad support for the right tocarry on political activity and physically defend their meet­ings. But even in the recent past members of the CP andYWLL hil.Ve resorted to threats of Violence, and in somecases physical attacks, against Trotskyists. An. example wasthe attack 'last winter on Will Stanley, a student at the Bor­ough of Manhattan Community College in New York.

The Daily World's linking of the Trotskyist movement withgoon tactics against workers organizations will be repudiatedby all who are familiar with the record of the SWP. At thesame time, The Militant urges all groupS and individualswho support democratic rights to unite in -il common effortto -repudiate the hooligan attacks of the NCLC, to organizeto stop the breaking up of movement meetings, and to defendorganizations under attack. .

6. Cops and Rightists Join NCLC's Anti-Communist Campaign

From the May 18, 1973, issue of The Militant

It has become clear that the so~alled

National Caucus of Labor Commit­tees has been joined by police agentsand right-wing thugs. The NCLC' is

a small group that has claimed to besoCialist. However itl! current ·Opera~Hon Mop-Up· campaign to physically·destroy· the Communist Party, Social-

'22

ist Workers Party, aad other groupson the left, has attracted right-wingersand cops who have exactly the sameaim.

On May 6, 16 NCLC members werearrested in Philadelphia after attempt­ing to invade a meeting of the PublicWorks Action Committee. One of thosearrested, Nereida Cordero, was foundto be a state parole investigator.

This was the second time that NCLCthugs were identified as. part of thepolice apparatus. One" of thosearrested for the April 11 'attack onYoung Workers Liberation Leaguemembers in Philadelphia was DaIrlelValdes, another parole'investigator,who was found to be carrying aloaded .38 revolver. Cordero gave thesame home address to the police thatValdes had given.

According to 'th~ 'May 8 DailyWorld, the' attackers at the PublicWorks Action Committee meeting were

armed with clubs and numchucks.Three-of those who repelled the NCLCthugs required medical attention, oneof them a' member of the YWLL andtwo members of the Public Works Ac­tion 'Committee. Three defenders ofthe meeting were also anested oncharges of disorderly conduct.

Another example of right-wingersusing the NCLC ·Operation Mop-Up·campaign' fOf their own,purposes 0c­

curred in '1'arytown, N. Y. A leafletappeared at the auto plant in T~­town signed by the ·UAWCollllllitteet~ Stop Communism.· It appealed, tow'oi-kers not to support Bill Scott, aleader of Trade Union Actionand Democracy, who was running lorshop chairman in UAW Local 664in TarrYtown.

The . leaflet quotes the NCLC publi-

cation New Solid:arity, which is identi~

fied as published by the ·NationaICaucus of Labor,- attacking, Scott asa supporter of the Communi-stPlU'ty.

The headline on the leaflet says,"Stop the Pinkos-Do you want thecommie flag flying at the union hall?"It says further on, -Fight GM and fightthe commies-Hanoi, Moscow, RedChina, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, orScott. None shall replace the UAWPr'esident Woodcock as the voice andleader of the UAWmember. The UAWblue shirt must never be changed to

'ink' "p .The violent campaign by the NCLC

to "delitroy'" the Communist Party, 80­cialist Workers Party, and other radi­cal organizations has become indis­tiriguishable from the anticommunismof the rightists and the government.

7. Young Socialist Alliance Conference in 'Detroit Repulses NCLC Attack

From the May 18, 1973, issue of TheMilitant

']JyMIKE KELLEYDETROIT, May 9 - For. the first timethe so-called Nati.Qnal Caucus ofLabor Committees (NCLC) has -as­saulted a meeting sponsored by theSocialist Workers Party and theYoung Socialist Alliance. They werequickly .repulsed by an organized de­fense guard. The attack was anotherin a series of frenzied, goon-squadassaults in recent weeks against .theCommunist Party, ,Young Work~s

Liberation League,' and other groupson the left. ,

On May 5 a group of hoodlums, led

by and including recognl%ed memba-s-of the NCt.C; attacked 'a Bessionofaregional socialist educational con­ference 'at Wayne State University.Speaker at the session was Peter Buch,a nationally known spokesman forthe SWP on the Mideast, speaking onthe Palestinian liberation movement.

When the attack came,. some 18 to20 people, including the speaker, wereinside the meeting room in the Uni­versity Center Building. There wereanother six to nine people registeringfor the conference and those doing theregistering outside the' room. Theseincluded Jerry Crist, who is p~yparalyzed and, has t9 wear a braCeand use special crutches to get about.He turned out to be. a target of thethugs. '

I interviewed Harold Schlechtweg,

a student from Bloomington, Ind.,who was attending the conference. Hewas the first victim of the. attackers. .Schlechtweg was holding open thedoors for arriving participants whenhf: heard someone shout, ,·Let' s ,go!'

At this point a group he .imalesat ~ut 15 rounded the corner of thestairwell, rushed up the:stairs,knocked him over", and entered thehaDw~y.

liIe-~dhe was then beaten withwooden sticks by a number.of them.He ,could only protect himself by roll­ing into a ball and covering his headand neck., He showed this reporternumerous welts and brUises all o.ver,

his bodY'" .Most of those. in the process of

registering in the hallway were chaseddown the hallway and out another.door. Crist, however, couldn't move.He was,· knocked down and beatenwith clubs by three or four hoodlums.He ~a8 later taken to Ford Hospital,where he was treated for a seriousgash Dn the right side of the head aridnumerous bruises.

Doctor Mxolisi Ntlabati of the Cen­ter for Black Studies at Wayne StateUniVersity, and a visiting friend fromNew YOrk, Professor Nonceba Lu­banga, confirmed this account of theattack. They had come up' the stairs.just before the attackers and wereabout to enter Doctor Ntlabati's f"dth

23

floor office. Neither was attending theconference.

Dr. Ntlabati said the attackinggroup had .·police sticks, woodenweapons, an iron bar, and ironham­mers.· He said he saw the registrationtable "knocked over" and the peoplesitting. behind it were attacked.

Upo~ 'hearing the cOmmotion out­side, m.arshals in the meeting roomrushed 'outside to aid the victims ofthe attack and to prevent the meetingfrom being broken' up. They includedmembers of the ¥SA, InternationalSocialists, SWP, and unafmiated in­dividuals.

Within two or three minutes, the at­(ackerswere repelled and driven backout the doors they had come through.Severa~ weapons were seized fromthem' including a hammer andseveral clubs. Other weapons used bythe NCLCers included at least onenwnchuck (two wooden blocks con­nected by a heavy chain), at leastone length of chain, and karate sticks.

Apparently some of the NCLCershad no stomach for beating someonewho is crippled. It was noticed thatas many as five or six of the NCLCattackers, including one of their lead­ing members, Richi Freeman, heldback from participating in the initialattack and then retreated when themarshals arrived.

one of the marshals, Don Bechler,

wa:S alSo injured' seriously enough torequire treatment, at the FordHospital.

As the NCLC people hastilyretreated, it was noticed that they werecarrying several of their members.NCLC members later reported sev­eral "seriously hurt."

After the, attack more people arrivedfor the conference, and P~ Buch'stalk began on time at 3 p.m. .

Just before the meeting began,..hoW;­ever, camPUS j>o!ice arrived. Th~tQO~all the weapons captured from ',thethugs and obj~ts that. c,onf~enc~participants had picked, up todt1enc:1themselves. TPe meetingorga~

protested vehemently th.u .this woul~

leave tlie ,meeting open, to further at:tacks.

Upon 'leaving the meeting, it wasdiscovered the police·bad-turned awaya'number of people Who wanted to' at­tend the conference 'shortly after it be­gan.' According to Ken Weber, a prom­inent local minister, he ana some 20others were not allowed to attend themeeting.

Members of variou~ ~rganizations,

including the Iilternatio'nal Socialists,Workers . League,' and' 8particistLeague, joined the sWPand YSA indefending, the Detroit ~p ,1'nayoralcampaign 'banquet that sam.~ ~veJj:ingand the two sessions of the eonferenceheld on the following Sunday: 'Therewere no further incidents. . --"

Most radical'groups in DetrQit~ha.veagreed to a united defense'for futuremeetings threatened by NCLCgdci~~'

A number of groups on the WayneState University campu$, including

members of the Young WorkersLiberation League, have agreed tohelp defend a meeting scheduled forAndrew Pulley, national secretary ofthe YSA, at the university tomorrow.

This is the fIrst known physical at­tack by the NCLC in Detroit. Priorto 'this, 'however, they have verballythreatened a number oforganizationsand individuals. For instance, earlierthe same day, at the broadly spon­sored . Michigan Committee AgainstHigh Prices demonstration, RichardGibson,president of the local WelfareEmployees' Union, was told, "We'regoing to get. you next," oy peopleht'! recognized as members of theNCLC.

8. N:tac~on SV/,r c;:ampaign 'Supporter~"Qring~J),~CJnd ~r Arr:est of NCLC Thugs

From the June 29, 1973, issue of The Milita1).t

By: LINDA JENNESS ·r:'JUNE 19- Three Socialist WorkersParty· members filed crlminal'char.gesag,ainati National Caucus of Lab'orCommittees (NCLC) goon SteveGetz­off Oil :'June 15. Rebecea Fiiich, co­ordinator of 'the New York SWYmay­oral campaign, identifIed Getzo1f fr,ompo!ice<pq~~graphsas one of the thugswho ha4attacked her and Jesse Smithand,K,~ Shilman on Ju~e 9. As ~result ,of the assault, Smith was hO&­pitalized witlJ a broken arm and;gashes on his face and head requifing11s~t:8..

To date Getzoff has not been,ar­rested fW·this attack. On.lune 11,howevu;,Getzoff and another NCLChooligan, George Turner~ were arrest·ed .lor assaulting Ron Tyson, a re­porter for the Daily World, and a com­panion, Rowina Pearce. Getzoff andTurner were charged with second-de­gree assault and possession of dan­gerous instrUments. They' had beenarmed with nunchakus" a karate wea­pon. Both were released on their ownrecognizance and ordered to appearfor. trial on June 26.

Nat Bentoff, Village Voice writer,Dr. Benjamin Spock, and RolandWatts of the Workers Defense Leaguehave added their names to a state­ment demanding that the city arrestthe hoodlums responsible for the at­tacks. The statement, which demands

"immediate action from the cityadmin-'istrlltion ;. to s.top these attacks,' fBbeing cireulated for' additional sup-'port. ,"

N orman Oliver, SWP candidate for'mayorbf New York, in a statemenf'Issued today' reiterated his demlindthat city hall order the "New·Y«k;Pollce ,Department and the District At-,torney's officeto arrest these thugs1itlldf

bring full criminal charges agabist1

them in -order to stop theseoutrage&sviolations ofaemocratic rights." . ''''li

In'the June 1S.22 issue of New 'SOU·d.dritt/,· newspaper of the NCLC; theLabor Committee openly chtltns 're­sp<lItilibiIitYfor' tbeserecent attacks._In a box headlined, "The SWamP'PafsfOr SeattlefIarassment," New Solida,.;..tysfalt!S:"()ne member of the.SOci81~

iSf WorkerS Party (SWamP) WB.sh~during a confrontation with L,aborCommittee members in New York ,onS~tUrd~y, June 9. The tDcident.~~in retaliation, (or the:harassmep.L~fLabor Committee members by SWPeisin Seattle on May 14." '" ..•.

The so-called ~arassment of Labor'Committee members in Seattle" refersto a meeting held in Seattle to'i»ro:test NCLC assaults. The meetll1g'waeorganIZed by the Black Panther Par­ty. The SWP, along willi severalothdpoliticalorganlzations,patticipated inthe meeting. '

After the meeting IiI Seattle, NCLC

24

sent a letter to Jack Barnes, nationalsecr.eta:ry. of the SWP, demanding a"repudiation" of the meeting.

NewiSolidarity continues: "Barnes'impertinent fallure to respond •to therequeSt was directly responsible forftle'retribution on June 9.",Ina:nother article in New Solidarity,

the' 'Labor Committee admits to theattaCk on Ron Tyson. "The twO" LCmeinbers', Steven Getzov and GeorgeT1:Iril'et, were in the process of teach­mg·...Tyson a lesson," the article states,"when a plainclothes policeman inter­fered, and made the arrest on June1,1.."

Harassment of the SW~ by theNCLC continues. On Saturdaymprnlng, June 16, a woman came~tothe Militant Bookstore at 2744Rl'oadway in New York and beganbuying some literature. YSA organizer.Jude Coren, who was in the building,which also contains offices of the SWPand the YSA, noticed two NCLCersoutside looking into the window. Sherecognized one of them as a partici­pant in an NCLC assault at Colum­bia' Unive~sity on April 23, and, an­other'as a longtime member of NCLC.

"We sent a defense team downstairsto: watch the door," Coren says, "andthe two goons walked to the end ofthe block and waved. We assumedthey were signaling more of their peo­ple 'around the cotner. The woman

could either join with ,them or be •Nixon's ~ide. They told her that ~'

ther the revolJltion or fascism wasc~ming in five years and that th~~wasn't much time. ' '

"The Chicanos present demanded te;know what the NCLC was up to;They referred to the articles in theMilitant exposing the terrorist attack,by NCLC on the movement and de:.mandedto known they were ~ops,

"The meeting ended with the Chi­cano activists telling the NCLCers thatthey wereri't going to stand for themcotning back and harassing Enriquet­ta Sanchez; The NCLCers said thatthey probably wouldn't come bad[:On their way out, one of them said;'We'll see you on the other side ofthe barricades. '

"Then they turned to Miguel Pendasand said, 'You did a ,good job here.'I guess they thought all the peoplepresent at the meeting were broughtby the SWP because of the frequentreferences to The Militant Actually,the people present were activists fromdifferent political persuasions, includ­ing 150me people from Sanchez's ,~

flee. Sanchez had asked everybodyto come to the meeting."

Enriquetta Sanchez, a welfare work­er in the HUJ1.tiIlgton area of Los An­geles, has been harassed by the NCLCsince January. Several ijm~'NCLCmembers, bave visited Sanchez at heroffice (ind deIQanded that she join theNationaIUnemployed-WeIfare'RightsOrganiza~on (NU-WRO), an organi­zation set ,up by NCLC. '

was in the bookstore about 15 min­utes and then left. The two men walkedup t~ meet ber, and they all, walkeclaway.

"About one minu~ later we received!i call from Zeke },loyd, a leader ofthe NCLC. He said, 'This is ZekeBoyd. One of our members ~ up inyour bookstore and if you don't lether go right away th~re's going tobe trouble.' I told hun that she hadalready left and he ,hung JJ.p.

"They were clearly tryi~g 10 pro­voke an incident. They obviously sentthe woman up to see how many ofus were in the offices."

; -~ ,-, .~.. )

'Last week,' after making vagueoii~ts, ,pounding on the table, ands4~titillg'at Sanchez; NCLC memberstOld ,her they would return to her of­fice ~ort Friday, June 15, to "discuss"once again her joining NU.:WRo.Concerned about the threatS, 'Sanchez

The Lower Manhattan branch Of fnvited several Chicano activists tothe SWP also received a threatening participate in the June 15 meeting withphone ~all from the NCLC. The per- her.son on the phone said, "This is the On Friday, when the NCLC IQem­Labor Comptittee. YourpeopledidQ't 'be.rs, arrived at Sanchez's office ex­listen too well last time. Yourpeopl~ ~~fuk to meet with only her, theyhave harassed us in Los Angeles. If found instead 10 Chicano activistsyou don't want another Jesse Smith who wanted to sit in on the meeting.you better discipline your people." The Miguel Pendas, a Militant reporter,caller refused to give hJs name. was oneal those present. Mark Schnei-

Apparently the ealler wa,' referrJng ,. der, ,YSA organizer in Los Angeles,to $WP and YSA participation in the: WllB also pfesent.defense of a ,Los Angeles Chicapa~-. Schneider reports that the NCLCerstivist against threats by the NCLC. ,told ,Sanchez she had a choice, "She

9., Committee to Stc!~ T,rrorist Attacks Demands Con.viction of Goons~~'. '.

From ~eJ.¥.!~ l~, 19,73, issue of The Militant

JULY 3 - Jose Torres, National Cau- ing them as if they were part of a smallcus of Labor Committees (NCLC) feud on the left. What is reany at stakemember charged with aggravated~- is, a,.serious attack against the civilsault lUld battery in conne<:tion with ~ies of the Communist Party,thethe April Jl beating of six ,m~bers, SOCialist ,_Workers Party, and otherof the Temple University Young Work- _radk:..lorwmiZations."ers Liberation, League,. was acquitted! MarkJls: .stressed the importance ofJune 28. Torres was formerly a CIA puttin,gpre$su.re on the DA's officeagent in Vietn~. inNew York City to vigorously prose-

According to the YWLL, Philadel- ,cute NCl;..C -goons Steve Getzoff. andphia District Attorney Arlan Spector's George, 'l¥rner. "The acquittal ofoffice failed to carry out.~n adeqqate 'I:orr~~!Q P~ilaq~phia shows that weprosecution. An eJql.mple,is that As- can'tinlftth,e ~ourts,and the dis,trictsistant District Attqrl,llaY Bruce Neff a.ttorney~toprotect ilJ.e basic demo­failed to call several witnesses who cratic ri¥htsqr socialists. We musthad, identified Torres as the director mobilize broad, .political pressure be-of the atta,ck. fore theyW:lll r~pond."

Marilyn Markus, ,secretary of the Getzoff and -Turner were arrestedNew York Commi~ee to Stop Terror- June llon'chai:-ges pf assault againstist Attack~ organized to protest NCLC Ro~ TYson,s,t~writer for the Dailyhoolig~nism, told The Milifx;z.nt, "Tilere World.' Getzot(~~s arrested again onis no excuse for this inadequate prose- June 26 after being identified by Re­cution on the parto! the fJ;1Y-adelphia becca Finch and Ken Shilman as onedistrict attorney. His 9ff'lCe is attempt- of five armed ~~gs who attacked theming to ignore these NCLC armed at- from behind on June 9.tacJJS on unarmed indlviduals by treat- Jesse Smith, who was with them, suf-

25

fered serious head injuries requiring 11stitches and a broken arm. Finch,ShUman, and Smith are leaders ofthe Lower Manhattan branch of, thtlSocialist Workers Party. Smith is alllOa member of the New York City Ta~i

Drivers Local 3036. ","Hearings for Getioff and Turner ai~

scheduled fol July 16, 9:30 a. m., ,at100 Centre Street. Meanwhile they -ar~

free on their own recognizance.Markus told The Militant that op;­

position to the NCLC's ~ooliganCam~

paign, now in itsfourth month, con::tinues to grow. "Throughout the coun­try scores of trade 'unions, studentleaders; professors, Black and Pu.E!l't()Rican organizations, civil libertarIans...and virtually all radical organiza­tions, despite sharp political disagree-,ments, have condemned these attacks.

Support is also growing for the new­ly formed New York Committee toStop Terrorist Attacks, which is at­tempting to organize broad support

to demand that the city governmentdefend the basic democratic rights ofall individuals and organizations at­tacked by NCLC thugs. Initial spon­sors include, among others, RuthGage-Colby, longtime leader in thepeace movement; Myrna Lamb,fem­inist playwright; Conrad Lynn, Na­tional Conference of Biack Lawyers;N orman Oliver, Socialist Workers Par­ty candidate for lIlayor; and KatherineSojourner, a coordinator of the Na­tional Peace Action Coalition,

This wedt the comxnittee sent a let­ter to Mayor John Lindsay explain­ing the history of the NCLC attacksand the serious abrid~meilt of civil

liberties they represent The letter de­niand~ that the mayor initiate aninvestigation to determine if employ­ees of the New York City Police De­partment or any other city law en­forcement agency are operating with­in NCLC as agents provocateUrs.

The fact that two NCLC assailantsarrested in Philadelphia wereidenti­fled as Pennsylvania parole officers,along with numerous public exposuresof police provocateurs· in New YorkCity in the past few years, is suffi­cient grounds for beginning such aninvestigation.

The letter also expressed concernthat the New York police are. notdoing

everything poSsible to apprehend andprosecute these hooligans. It de­manded that the police question Get­zaff, Turner, and known leaders ofthe NCLC to determine the identityof the other four assailants involvedin the June 9 attack on Smith, Shil­man, and Finch.

Markus also stressed the importanceof Writing letters and sending' tele­grams of protesttoPistrict AttorneyFrank Hogan, 155 Leonard St, NewYork, N. Y. 10013; Mayor John Lind­say, CitY Hall, New York, N. Y.10007; and Police CommissfonerDon­aId Cawley, 240 Centre St, New York,N. Y~ 10013.

Section Six: Tactics and Principles in the Fight Against Violence in the Movement

[The follOWing article is reprinted from Volume 31, Num­ber 25 of the SWP Discussion Bulletin, pUblished in 1973.Barry Sheppard is a member of the National Committeeof the SWP. Gerald Clark is a former member of the SWP.The appendix, added for this ooition, is a letter written by

Leon Trotsky to the attorney-general of Mexico pointingto the Mexican Communist Party's role in organizing theMay 24, 1940 machine gun attack on Trotsky's home.The letter is reprinted from Writings of Leon Trotsky,1939-40 (New York; Pathfinder Press, 1973.)]

OurDef~nseAgainst the Goon AHacks Launched by the NCLCBy Barry Sheppard

The Militant recently received a Iettertroni ComradeGerald Clark criticizing the. tactics the party has utilizediIi defending itself from the goon attacks lailnched by theNational Caucus of Labor C(,m~ittees. His letter con­cludes with the rhetorical questions: "Has the SWP givenup the principle Of working class solidarity against classenemies in favor of putting trust in the 'justice' of thebourgeois courts?"

Comrades probably find it odd that Comrade Clarkwould think that the pages of The Militant are an ap­proPriate place for a SWP member to charge that theSWP has gone over to putting trust in the class enemy.The editors thought that this was not the proper place foran intraparty discussion and decided not to print theletter. However, the issues raised by Comrade Clark areunportant and should be answered.·

The following is the text of Comrade Clark's letter (allemphasis in the original).

To the Editors:

* * *

June 29, 1973

26

I was quite interested to read in The Militant (June 29,1973) two articles concerning the use of bourgeois courtsby working class organiza.tions. The first article entitled,"Teamsters sue Fitzsimmons, back UFWU," had to do witha group of rank-and-file Teamsters who med suit in theLos Angeles Superior Court charging the union's topofficials with entering into a conspiracy with grape grow­ers to bust the United Farmworkers Union.

Regardless of the truthfulness of such charges, the tacticof one section of the union movement bringing anothersection of the movement-however reactionary-into thebourgeois courts to settle differences has always been op­posed by revolutionary socialists. The reasons are simple:It is ,a principle within the revolutionary workers' move­ment that differences of opinion, including the resort toviolence, can only be resolved by the working class itself.No bourgeois court can provide "justice" whenever theworking class is involved in a fight for its rights. It neverhas and never will be "impartial" toward the class struggle.

But the tone of the article was one of approval! Takethis quote for example: "As soon as certain technicalitiescan be ironed out with Superior Court Judge CampbellLucas, Giler (the attorney for the Teamster gr6up) plansto submit the suit . . ." No criticisms follow this this

statement! The entire article simply explains what is hap­pening. By implication, and from what The Militant hasalready written on, the UFWU-Teamster dispute, the readerhas no real choice but to conclude that the paper approves~f such tactics. Is this the prop~r way to educate Farm­workers and Teamsters interested in working. class soli­darity?

But the photo beside the article, showing a group ofrank-and-file Teamsters picketing a Safeway store, indi­cates that, The Militant also supports that kind of a tactic­a public protest oriented toward mobUi$ing the ranks insolidarity with the United Farmworkers struggle. But whyis there no comment about this, correct tactic? Surely youwere aware of the details concerning, this demonstration?

The second article is, related h>. the first. It was eptitled,"Arrest of NCLC thugsdeDlanded in N. Y." It begins:"Three Socialist Workers Party ,members filed criminalcharges against National Cautus of Labor Committees(NCLC) goon Steve Getzoffon June 15...." The articlealso quoted from a statement issued by Norman Oliver,SWP candidate for mayor of New York, whichdcalledupon "the 'New York Police Department and the DistrictAttorney's office, to' arrest thesetliugs and bring fullcriminal charges against them in'or-det to stop these out­rageous violations oh:lernoeratic rights:"

Now, is it the position of the SWP and The Militantthat NCLC is not'-aworking ;j:~lass organization? IT so,what kind of organization is it?'Fascist? Bourgeois? Petty~

bourgeois?, The question. is not unimportant. Because ifNCLCis 8. working'·elass organization, would it not beincorrect 'to bring suit against It in' a bourgeois court?But even if it' w~ebtt,certainly tlleSWP doesn't believethe New York Police: 'Dept is 'capable of stopping "theseoutrageous vidatlbrlS1'of·'-'delDocratic rights" perpetrated bythe NCLCthugs1' },,' ''j; , •

Is it not true iliat'ilie rounders'ofNtLC ~ame out of theSWP just like so m~nY~·~e.{sinall groups which existon the left today nS, ,s~jVt,9S.L,,etc.)? Aren't all ofthese groups still par,t'of th~ ."":.Ofker.s~ movement? Why,then should NCLC' be~aract4:I'i;£.e9.any differently? Itsfa~cist-like t~ctics are ~ot .ae..v~'iO::th'e \Vorkers: movementeither. They, were first intrOdV;~~.:J>f"t¥ 'St~linists ~whichthe SWP still,considers ap~rtof,the .W'PJ'~ip.g c;~ass. ,

Histodca.Uy, revolutionary' oJ'g~~~~ons ha-ve .utilizedthe bpurgeo~ courts and other bo.~institutionstostrengthen -,the p~ition of the wo*~clas~ vis-a-vis theCI:lpital~tcl~ss. and at the same fune,,,to.«ijsP~th~illusionsof the maS$e8 in: bourgeois democr~cy in general. .Butnever ha.ve-th,eY W!ed the bourgeoiJi c;ourlsagainst another.tQor!dng c.~,.tendency, regardless of,~e crhne!J (t mayhave committed.. (One need only mention h~ethe numer­QUs crimes ~f,tI1eStalinists againstworke,i:Siand the Trot­skyists to' show ,the extent to which a working.-classten­dency can degenerate and still remain a part Qftheworkers' movement),.,· '-

What .isthe significance of these two articles?> Has theSWP given:>up;the' principle of working. class sotidarityagainst class enemies in favor of putting trust intlte"justice" of tlfeilfOurgeois courts?

.: s/Gerald ClarkOakland, Calif.

27

I will take up the following points raised by this letter:(1) Is it a violation of principle ever to demand that thebourgeois authorities protect our rights? (2) Is it a viola­tion of principle to demand that bourgeois authoritiesprotect our rights, in situations where we are under physi­cal attack from a tendency in the working class? (3)How do we characterize' the NCLC? (4) Why did we usethe tactics we have in defending ourselves from the NCLCgoons? (5) The suit brought by the rank-and-file Teams­ters.

1. Is ita violation of principle ever to demand that thebourgeois authorities protect our rights?

Comrade Clark is not clear on this question. He says,"Historically, revolutionary organizations have utilized'the bourgeois courts and other bourgeois institutions tostrengthen the positions of the working class vis-a-vis thecapitalist class, and, at the same time, to dispel the il­lusions of 'the masses in bourgeois democracy in general."On the other hand, the central argument advanced byComrade Clark is that "No bourgeois court can provide'justice' whenever the working class is involved 1n a fightfor its rights. It never has and never will be 'impartial'toward the class struggle." This argument applies notonly to cases where we are physically attacked by other.tendencies in the' working class, but also to the moregeneral case of such attacks on us from any quarter.

Comrade Clark is correct when he says that the courtSare not impartial in the class struggle. The courts are notimpartial when the NCLC or the Stalinists use goon tacticsagainst us, and they certainly are not impartial when theKu Klux Klan, the Legion of Justice, Cuban gusanos,or other right-wing thugs attack us. In any conflict b~.

tween the bosses and the workers, between racists andBlacks' between reactionaries and socialists, etc., the bour.!geois c~urts and other authorities are not impartial and dO'not liispensejustice 'equally; .

IIi situations where we are under attack from anyquarter, we have to start from, the assumption that tl1~

capitalist authorities are "neutral" against us. We neverplace reliance upon them. OUr primary line of<!Efens~­

is reliance upon ourselves' and whatever forces we c~*mobilize in def~nse ,of our rights, including in the orgaDl~

zation of the physical Side of that defense. ",But at present in the U. S., the capitalist class does not,

rule through a fascist dictatorship, but through a sys~em

of bourgeois democracy. Certain democratic rightS havebeen formally won by the masses through struggle. Theextent to which these rights are real for the masses ~nd:

for organizations of th,e working class depends ~n~~_therelation of forces. The working class in general, and Qur­selves in particular, can win certain concessions. anq. J,>r?:tectlon of our rights, depending upon what support we canmobilize in the context of the overall relation of classforces. We have been able to \Yin certain defense cases, forexample, against attempts by the capitalist authorities tovictimize us. Recently we have won cases extending our,rights to be ~n the ballot

In certain cases where we have been physically attack­ed by right-wing forces, we have utllized the tactic ofdemanding that the authorities protect our rights, andwe have pressed for the arrest and conviction of the right~

wing, thugs. This was done to help build our overall po­litical defense against such attacks, which was the mainthrust of our defense effort. S-ome examples of where wedid this, have been ill defense against the armed attackson -our headquarters by gusanOS in Los Angeles, theKlan in Houston and the Legion of Justice in Chicago.In Los Angeles and Houston, these attacks were carriedout with lethal weapOlls. In all three cases, part of ouroverall defense effort was to demand that the authoritiesarrest and convict the culprits. We put no trust in thecapitalist authorities by doing this. But the campaign putpressure on them, helped expose their lack' of enthusiasmin prosecuting the attackers, and even helped expose theirdirect complicity with the, attacks. This aided our overalldefense effort and was a factor in halting the attacks int):lese c~ses,

The general democratic right we are appealing to wh.enwe J;Dake such demands is that, of equality before ,the law.This ,right was raised in the bourgeois-democratic revolu­tions, and represents a,n important gain for the masses.It is a right we support, and would certainly be includedin the ,constitution of a workers state. While we lcn,ow that~e capitalist state systematically violates this right. thereis nothing wrong with our demanding that it apply, to us.

2. Is it a violation of principle to demand that the bour­geois authorities protect ~ur righfB, in situations wherewer;u-e under violent attack from a tendency in, the work­ing class?

On :this question, Comrade Clark's answer is an un­ambiguous "yes."

TIiiS argument would put us, ,in a peculairposition.Let's look at a few examples., Some years ago, our na­tional Qffice was firebombed. We 'notified the' police, andconducted a campaign demanding that, the, police inyesti­gate the incident and arrest and convict those responsible.We suspected, and the police invetltigatio~J.ater,tend~ tocorroborate this, that a right-wing group was responsible.The cops dragged. theh- feet on the inveetigation- an ex­ample of a violation oC our democra,tic rights. But wedemanded thos~ riihts. Now suppose that it had turnedout th~t th.e attack actually caDle from the, CP or a grouplike the NCLC? Would we then have hlid to say, nOh,since it turned out that a working-class tendencyf4'ebomb~ed us, we dropch,arges, because, you see, we woJJ,1d haveP:r~sed charges if the attack was carried out bya capital­ist-class tendency, but not if it was carried Qut by a' work­ing:-ctass tendency." Further 'suppose that the authoritiesthemselves went ahead and pres$ed charges anyway­woUld we then 'support a'defense committee for those 'whofirebombed us,'in the name <if working-class solidarity?

hi the middle 1960s, a gunman came'into the DetroitheadcltiarteEs· and murdered one of our, comrades andseriously wounded two others. We notified the police andgave them all the fuformation we ;have about the killer.We also formed 'a comDlittee that demanded that thethe authorities pr~ecute the killer, and exposed theirlenient treatment of hiin. In this case, the murder was aright winger, apparently acting alone. What should Wehawe done ifU turlled ,out that he was from a working­class, tendency?

These two examples illustrate the fallacy of ComradeClark's position that it is a principle that we cannot de-

28

mand equal protection from the authorities in cases whereother tendencies in the working Class carry out physicalattacks upon us.

The error that Comrade Clark makes is to take a validprinciple and attempt to apply it in a situation that fallsoutside its scope of applicability. We do have a principleof working-class solidarity in the face of attacks by thebourgeoisie. We are opposed to any interference by theby tile capitalist class in the political differences withinthe working-class movement. We .are against appealingto the capitalist authorities to intervene into the disputesin'the working-class and socialist movements; Althoughthere lsa line of ,blood between ourselves and the Sta.'1in­ists, for example, we never call, upon the authorities tointervene in the political struggle between us.

Along these lines, we say it was a violation of principlesfor, the Stalinists to support the Smith Act proceedingsagainst our comrades in the early 1940s. That was anact of political strikebreaking, of aiding the class enemyin delivering a blow to the rights of all workers.

But differences of opinion in the working~classmovementare qualitatively dUIerent from the utilization 'of violencein the workers movement to settle those differences. Thegoon attacksofthe NC LC are not just an extension of thepolitical struggle in the socialist movement-they arejustas much a violation of working~class principles, as ap­pealing to the bourgeois a~thorities to settle such differencesis. Such attacks are a. violation of workers de,mocracy,a violl;ltion of democratic rights in general, and unI~ss

effectively countered and halted, will harm the socia:list.and working-c1a,ss movement In this case, the demandthatthestate authorities defend the democratic rights of thevictims of such attacks is not at all the same thing asca.lling upon those authorities to settle political differenceswithin the socialist or broader working-class movement.Insofar as a tendency in the working class utilized suchmethods, it has forfeited any right to appeal to working-class·solidarity to defend such attacks. '

There are many examples that could be cited wherewe have utilized this tactic. I will refer to two: the defenseof 'I'rotsky in Mexico and the struggle in,the Teamstersunion between the international bureaucracyalld the revo­lutionary leadership of Loca1574 in the 1930s.·

The defense of Tro~ky against the Stalinists was themost important instance· where our m()'Vement had to de­fend itself from a murderous attack froID: anotnertendencyin the socialist movement. The main thrUst of'this defensewas a political one of mobilizing whateverfotces we could,to counter the mountains of St81iIrlsf'slander directedagainst Trotsky, against the murders ,of'Tr'otskyists, andagainst the threat to assassinate Trotslty. But part of thatcampaign included appealing to the boUrgeois authorities,in this case the Mexican authorities~ to' defend Trotsky'srights. Part of our defense consiSted of a physical defense.This physical defense included, but did not rely upon,acceptance of a police guard at Trotsky's hOme. .

When the first attempt on Trotsky's life came in theattack led by Siquieros and bis. gang, SWPmemberSheldon, Harte was mUrdered. We and Trotsky not onlycooperated in the police investgation of the crime, Trotskypublicly intervened in that investigation, calling ,upon thepolice to specifically investigate the Stalinists. This wasnecessary ,to counter moves the Stalinists were makingto throw suspicion off themselves and onto us. We called

for the arrest and vigorous prosecution of the perpetrators.When Trotsky was assassinated, The Militant carefully

followed the police investigation. We called for exposureof the real criminals, Stalin's GPU, that had ordered thecrime. In doing· so, we were not calling upon the Mexicanpolice to outlaw or ban the Stalinists, or deprive them oftheir democratic rights. Nor did we .attempt to utilize theMexican authorities to settle the political questions indispute between ourselves and the. Stalinists. We were de­manding that, the authorities defend Trotsky's rights.Exactly how we utilized this tactic, of course, was condi­tioned by the situation" including the nature of theCardenas regime. , .

Farrell Dobb's new book, Teamster Power, recountsthe struggle the leaders of Local 574 were forced to wageagainst the bureaucracy hea~ed by Tobin. Tobin hadsent a, force headed byL. A Murphy into Minneapolisto try to destroy the ,lead.¢rship of 574. This attack in­cluded goon assaults. It is worthwhile quoting from thebook:

"On the morning of May 21 the new offensive began.Ray Dunne and George, Frosig were distributing leafletsand talking to. drivers In the freight yards of the Omaharailway. Suddenly, a. ~uick sedan. drove up and a gangof Tobin's thugs jumped out of it.and assaulted Ray andGeorge with blackjaqks.They were~verelybeaten.

"Ownership of the Buick. was, traced to L. A Murphythrough a check with the automobile liCense bureau. Thisfact, along with an accoupt of. the atrocity, was pubUshedin the, Northwest 'Organizer to inform the labor move­ment 'of the new danger. For the record, a protest wasalso made. to the public author.iWs. But they did nothingabout it, as was to be .expected.,'-

"Local 574' immediately ..c~. a.mass protest meeting.Word of the outrage, had' spread rapidly and the hallwas jammed with union members, many of them ac­companied by then- wives. As the fatter' development indi~

cated, not since the 1934str~eshad the workers beenso aroused. They were more .~an ready to fight back,and combat veterans that theYViere by now, they knewit had to be done intelligently: ' ,,

"Accepting the executive board,',s ad.vice, the member­ship adopted a three-point plan. ~f.~~on: efforts wererepoubled to obtain speedy ren~~tof cpntracts that wereabout to expire; an assessment was voted to providea. special defense fund; and a resolution was adopted~ forth the basic line for. a caJllpaign to mobilizethe.•.~ty's working class against th~' qewgoon attack.,"Tq~r~olution condemned the gangl5terism introduced

by., Tobin, calling it an open invitation to . the enemiesof~J\I.lQ()r movement If it cotJldbe made to workagaiUst·L()cal 574, the other unions. wer.~ warned, t1;lesa~~ m~Q4s would be used against them, as ,well. Thusan, open challenge had been hurled at the leaders andmem~ers.of, all AFL organizations. It was their duty,acting\, ~q.t4ep- own selMnterest, to join in. the struggleto free !lle,moveptent from the menace of thuggery."OuI;.~e.pea1 fell upon responsive ear!i.' Officers, and

especiall~~~nk~nd-filemembers of the AFL locQls, pouredheat QD;!11~.right-wingofficials of the Central Labor Unionand .th,;~~ers Joint Council. They also brought heavypressure,~o.b~ronMayor Latimer, as did Farmer-LaborParty w~~.dubs. Finding himself under heavy fire, themayor Celtebe.bad to do something-so be setout to

smear us. .',"Late in May a small army of police made a 5Url>rffl~

raid on Local 574, charging into our headquarters withdrawn guns. They were accompanied by news reporti!rsand photographers. Bearing John Doe warrants for illegal'sale of liquor, they searched the premises for evid~riee'

Nothing was to be found, except .part of a keg of beeI'which had been stored away after being left over frorda sociaL Twice more in the next' few days the cops de-'scended upon' us, but they were unable to spot anythinlfthat could be used against theuriion. ., .

"It was in connection with these smear attempts thatFrosig was arrested on the gun charge mentioned pr~

viously."Taking advantage of the propaganda cover 'Lati~er

sought to provide for him, Murphy resumed the· physicalassaults. In broad daylight on the afternoon of June 'a';four rank-and-file members of local 574 driving aloltg'Washington Avenue in a passenger car were forced toth~'

curb and ordered out of their vehicle by two carloadS'of Tobin'S musclemen. Some held guns on the' uriiorimembers, while others pulled out blackjacks and' l)~at'them. When the victims ran to escape,' a volley of shotsfollowed them. .

"Bystanders had gotten the license' numbers of the tpugs"cars, and this information was reported to Latimer willi:a demand that he take action. As usual though, no arreiitS'were made.

"Instead the mayor held a conference with Murphy ~nd

Meyer LeWis.. Reporters were then summoned and Murpp-¥issued a sl.atemimt to them. According to the Minneapdli,sTribune account, he brazenly accused the victims of 'firirig'the shots themselves,' falsely asserting that they had doneso 'after losing a fight with the employees of StanchfiefCiTransfer Company, ' a firm located near the scene of thecrime. . ,

"A week later a Local 574 job steward Harold Hayneswas attacked while at work. He had just got back intothe eab of his truck after making a delivery. Then theBu1ck sedan, registered in Muphy's name, pulled up and:blocked his way. Five goons leaped' out of it. One ponte;da gun at Haynes. The other four dragged him out otthe car and beat him with blackjacks and gun butts, .

'We made a strong protest to Governor Olson. In, Iiletter signed by Bill Brown he was informed that we wereholding Ii' special meeting of Local 574 on June 15. We'demanded an official answer by then as to what olso'liproposed to do about Tobin's criminal attempt, withLatimer's collusion, to destroy a section of the labormovement.

"Coining immediately to our support, the fifth warqFarmer-Labor club. insisted that Olson take' prompt ac~tion. Demands were made that he invoke the executivepower of the state to put a stop to acts of yandalismin Minneapolis, and that he uncover the instigators ofthe plot against organized labor.

"Similar demands upon the governor came from else­where in the unions and the Farmer-Labor Party. Sincehe was coming up for reelection in the fall, it, was political­ly dangerous for him to ignore these pressures, and heknew it. So he passed word along that he would lookinto he situation right away, pretending that he. hadn'tknown what. was going on. Apparently Olson convincedLatimer that it was politically expedient to quiet things

29

down inside the labor movement, because the physicalattacks on us now abated." '

,\\Ie see from this quote that after one attack. we notifiedthe, authorities for the record, !hat is; t9 help prepareour position to counter these attacks. Later, we were ableto mou~t a powerfulcampaign,tha~ included demandingthat the governor "4J.voke the ex~cutive power of the state toput a stop to acts of vandalism ip Minneapolis, and thathe uncover the instig.ato[~,~Qf the plot against organizedlabor." This campaign, based on ~e mobilization of theunion rank and flle,and of the 'labor movement in general,was aided bythis4emand, and became powerful enoughto put a stop to the attacks in the polical context of Min­nesota at that time.. ''. ,

So we see that neither Trotsky nor the SWP consideredthat in such cases we could not as a matter of Plincipledemand; :that the capitalist authorities protest our righ'~,

or the rights of a left wing in the unions which lYe were .illthe leadership of, ag,ainst physical attacks laun<:h,ed bya tendency in the sO,cialist or labor movement Uisatactical, not a principled question, " "

Perhaps some furtherexampIes will help Comrade Clarkunderstand the difference in 'calling upon~,:~apita1istauthorities to intervene in the political disputesw,ifhin the!!ocialist movement, and demanding that those satPe au­thorities grant us our rights in theface of, a violtmt physicalattack on us by a tendency in the workers movement.It. would be unprincipled for us to have aped, the 'Stalinistsand have called, for the conviction of the CP Smith Actdefendants. Those trials were an attaCk 9n the de'mocraticrights of the. whole working class and social~finovement,and ,the principle 'we follow in such cases'is,s}!mmed upin the slogan, "an attack on one is an attaCk on an."But this is an entirely different thhig U!'aJ{: ihe trial ofTrotsky's assassin, although both the Foley Square de­fendants and Mercader belonged to the identical Stalinistmovement.

Demanding that, the governor of Mirinesota utilize hisexecutive powers to stop Tobin's gooll$ is a differentthing than if we had ,called for the jailing of Tobin tosettle the political dispute in the union. " '

3. How Do We Characterize the NCLC? ,Comrade Clark points to the fact that the leaders' of these

groups he mentions came out 01 the SWP. That doesn'tprove anything, ofcourse, so did J ames Burnhiu~.

J\l1 of these groups can be characterized as petty­bourgeois sects, operating in the socialist moveJrtent andtherefore in the workers movement, and are working-classtendencies, This still remains true of the NCLC. In the caSeof the NCLC, however, we must note that its ca~paignto attempt to destroy the CP and ourselves by physicalmeans is be.ing utilized by the cops and 'right Wingers.It is becoming more and more stridently anticommunist.Whether this results in the NCLC becoming transformed,and moving right out of the socialist movement, is tooearly to say, in my opinion:

4. What Were, the, Reasons for the Tactics, We Adoptedin Defending. Ourselpes from the NCLC Goon Attack?

The major thrust of !>ur line from the beginning of theannouncement of "Operation Mop- Up" has been to mobilizethe left to repudiate the NCLC and such tactics within themOvement. This campaign has included attempting to

whatever extent possible to form a united front physicaldefense' to repulse NCLC attacks on any tendency in theleft, to keep them out af radical meetings, etc.

We rejected calling upon the police to defend our meetingsor the meetings of others. We did this for a number ofreasons. First, we decided that with proper organization,we would be able to defend oUr own meetings. The policecould be counted on to attempt to utilize their presenceat our meetings to victimize us. In the case of the NCLCattacks, we must assume that the cops would be "neutral"against us, possibly working with the cops inside theNCLC. Where possible, because we cannot rely on thebourgeois authorities to protect our rights, OUr first lineOf defense is ourselves and those forces we can 'mobilizein defense of our rights.

The CP took the opposite course. They placed relianceon the police, as their primary defense, and refused toattempt to mooilize the left in a united front effort to repulsethe NCLCthuggery. In one instance, this resulted in thecops coming into a CP hall before a meeting was begun,remOVing table legs and anything else that the CP mightutilize to defend itSelf, lind then leaving. Shortly thereafter,the NCLC showed up with clubs, and succeeded in hurtinga number of CP members and disrupting the meeting.

Our tactics have been far more sllcces,sful.The NCLChas to be taught that it cannot physically destroy us.In that regard, the experience they had at Columbia,and especially'the education they received' when they triedto break up the Detroit edUcationa1 conference by attackingwith clubs, chains, etc., did more to aid the campaignto stop the NCLCthan anything the CP did.

The CP's tactics reflect their general c1ass-collaborationistoU,tlook. They placed. primary reliance on the cops,'ratherthan on a campaign of mobilizing the left to defend theirrights and viewing any tactic of demanding that the au­thorities protect their rights within the context of such acampaign.

Our tactics began with the recognition that we mustrely ,primarily on ourselves and those forces we canmobilize. However, there is another important point wemust take into consideration in deciding tactics. We beginwith our understanding of the nature of the cpaitaliststate. We know that the capitalist state will not dispensejustice equally. As Com-rade Clark correctly point~ out,the state is not impartial. We must re~y on ourselves firstof all, and in the long run, 'help teach llieworking classto rely on its own power to defend itS rights, and to placeno: 'reliance at all in the capitalist authorities to do this.But the very reasons why we place no confidence in thecapitalist authorities to dispense justice fairly, 'indicatesthat there are limits, determined by the objective situation,on the phySical metlDswe~ariutiIizeto defend' outselveswithout walking into police 'victimization.tn the give~sitUation in the coun1iy todaY',fo~ example, it wouldbe utter folly for us to'attem:pf',to 'counter an attack onourselves with lethal weaponS'(~ns arid knives) by simi­larly arming ourselves. That· would set us up for amurderous police trap;muClias the Black Panthers wereset up. Consequently, partof-'Otudecisi-on to rely on ourown forces to defend our ineetings was predicated on thelevel or-weapons utilized bY'the NCLC. We could stopthem if they used clubs; if they utilized lethal weapons,we would not have been able to effectively counter themon that level, and would bave had to review our decision

30

not to notify the police.'The NCLC has now apparently changed its tactics.

Educational experiences such as the one they receivedin Detroit, the dispatch with. which their goons were re­moved from in front of our headquarters throughoutthe country, and our demonstrated preparedness to de­fend all our meetings undoubtedly had had an effect uponthem. Obviously, we must continue to keep our guardup until the danger from this quarter passes. But theNCLC has now launched a different kind of attack, notdirected at breaking up meetings, but at ambushing indi­viduals or small groups of comrades. It was this kindof attack that resulted in Comrade Jesse Smith's armbeing broken. In the face of these new thug tactics, we hada new problem, in some ways similar to that which Icited from Teamster Power. .Although we did take certainprecautions concerning oomrildes entering and leaving thehall, we could not hope to provide a continuous per­sonalguard for all comrades. Should we counter suchattacks by striking back with/similar attacks? There isno principle involved, butK we were to do this, we wouldbe making a first:class blunder by providing the copswith a good opportunity to setup a trap for us, andby playing into the hands of the authorities who are at­tempting to picture the NCLC •.ttacks as a "squabbleon the left" To do nothingto·defend our comrades isimpermissible. Thus we decided; ·:as part of stepping upour political campaign against the NCLC, to demandthe arrest and conviction of th~;thugs who attacked JesseSmith.

In no way does this implyf}iat WE!' place reliance on theauthorities. This is a subordh.J.aite part of our overallcampaign, which remains to mob~ the left against theNCLC. This aspect of our camp~will not harm ourexposure of the role police agentg,.pr~V'0c:ateursare playingin the NCLC attacks, but canheJp, it Just as in the caseof the Klan atta~ in Houstpn, where our campaigndemanding that the city authori•• 1t4ke action againstthe Klan compl~ented our expoSll~. of police collusionwith the Klan.

If Comrade Clark rejects the use: of these tactics, heshould tell us what other tactics\ft ;~ould use in thissituation. Otherwise he sounds as if mds telling us thatbecause. of what he considers to be pfmciPle, we just haveto take it if the .NCLC uses such llDl~iiih -tactics, or usesgllDS against us. That certainly wdUJd not inspire theworkirig class with confidence in such "p,thclples."

Appendix

5. The Suit Brought by Rank-and-File TeamstersComrade Clark refers to an article in The Militant con­

cerning a suit brought by a group of rank-and-file Teams­ters against Fitzsimmons and other top Teamster officials,charging them with conspiring with the grape growersto bust the United Farm Workers Union. According tothe article, the suit singles out the large sums of Teamsterfunds going to the goons who have attacked the UFWUpickets.

The principled questions involved in utilizing the courtsagainst such goon tactics within the labor movement havealready been discussed. There is another aspect to thisquestion that relates to the method utilized by ComradeClark of reducing tactical questions to formulas. Ourprinciples help guide our work. But they also have limitsof applicability, and sometimes one principle comes intoconflict with another.

For example, we are opposed to strikebreaking. Butthere are strikes that we do not support. An example wasthe 1968 teachers strike in New York, which we character­ized as a racist strike against the Black and Puerto Ricancommunities. At that time, our teacher comrades opposedthe strike, and our presidential candidate, Fred Halstead,led a group of parents in opening a school shut downby the strike.

We are in principle opposed to government interferencein the unions. But recently we supported a suit broughtby the NAACP against the steel bosses and the steel union,against racial discrimination by both. We have supportedsuits brought against some unions by women workersunder the Civil rights Act If the Equal Rights Amendmentpasses, we can expect more such suits.

Concerning the recent struggle in the United MineWorkers against the Boyle machine, we warned the minersof the dangers of government intervention into the union.At the same tme, we certainly did not object to the opposi­tiongroup demanding that the authorities arrest and con­vict the murderers of Yablonsky-whether those killerswere from the bosses, the Boyle machine or both. Similarly,we would be opposed to the rank-and-file Teamster groupComrade Clark mentions placing any reliance on thegovernment, or seeking government aid in settling thepolitcaldispute they have with Fitzsimmons. But we haveno objection to their bringing suit against Fitzsimmonsusing their dues to hire goons to attack the UFW U.

July 17, 1973

Trotsky'stetter to the Attorney-General of Mexico

Tbt:.Me1Cklmpress publisbed on June I a letter.TDrittenby Leon Trotsky to tbe attorney general of Mexico. tbe cbiefof tbe federlll police. and tbe foreign minister. By tbis letterTrotsky· successfully thwarted attempts to direct ll'WIly fromtbe Stalinists the investigation of the May 24 attempt to as­sassinate Trotsky. Tbe letter follows:

It is first of all necessary to affirm that the attempted as­sassination could only be instigated by the Kremlin; by Stalinthrough the agency of the GPU abroad. During the last few

31

years, Stalin has shot hundreds of real or supposed friends ofmine. He actually exterminated my entire family, except me,n:y wife and one of my grandchildren. Through his agentsabroad he assassinated one of the old leaders of the GPU, Ig­cace Reiss, who had publicly declared himself a partisan ofmine. This fact has been established by the French police andthe Swiss judiciary. The same GPU agents who killed Reisstrailed my son in Paris. On the night of November 7. 1936GPU agents broke into the Scientific Institute of Paris andstole part of my archives. Two of my secretaries, Erwin Wolff

/

and Rudolf Klement, were assassinated by the GPU; the firstin Spain, the second in Paris. All the theatrical Moscow trialsduring 1936-37 had as their aim to get me into the hands ofthe GPU.

In saying this I do not exclude the possibility of the par­ticipation of Hitler's Gestapo in the assassination attempt. Upto a certain point the GPU and the Gestapo are connected witheach other; it is possible and probable that in special casesthe same agents are at the disposal of both. Authoritative re­presentatives of the German government have publicly indi­cated that 1hey consider me a dangerous enemy. It is complete­ly possible that these two police forces cooperated in the at­tempt against me.

The general scheme of the GPU organization abroad isthe following: in the Central Committee of each'section of tbeCom in/em /bere is placed a Tt'lpon;ible director of tbe CPUfor that l'lmntry. His statns is known only to the secretary ofthe pari:' :!I1(1 nne or t"..o tru~tworthy members. The othermembers of the Central Committee have but a slight inklingof the special status uf this member.

As :1 member uf the Central Committee the country'sGPU representative ha~ the possibility of approaching withfull legality all members of the party, study their characters.entrust them with commissions. and little by little draw theminto the work of espionage and terrorism, appealing to theirsense of party loyalty as much as to bribery.

This whole mechanism was discovered in France andSwitzerland in connection with the murder of Reiss and thelater moves :lgainst my dead son and other persons. As for theUniled States, Krivitsky established that the sister of Browder,general secretary of the party, became a GPU agent throughher brother's recommendation. This example proves the rulerather than an exception.

Agents of the GPU upon coming to a foreign country fora specific task always work through the local head of the GPU,the above mentioned member of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party; without this they could not orient them­selves in the local situation and select the indispensable exe­cutors of their mission. The emissary from abroad and thelocal resident and their trustworthy aides work out the generalplan of their undertaking, study the list ,of possible collabora­tors and draw them into the. conspiracy step by step.

I do not have any informatiQll concerning the real, roleplayed by sergeant Casas and the qve police under him whowere on guard outside my house. I know only that they arearrested. One cannot be sure that they were not in the con­spiracy; the GPU has means as no'other institution in theworld of convincing, coercion and bribery. They could havesystematically insinuated to the police that t am an enemy ofthe Mexican people; promised them a career; and finally theycould have offered a high price for their services. But foreignagents could not approach the Mexican police; local agentswere necessary.

.The GPU is particularly concerned with the problem ofpreparing public opinion for a terrorist act, especially when aperson well-known nationally and internationally is the vic­tim. This part of the job is always assigned to the Stalinistpress, Stalinist speakers and the so-called "friends of the Sov­itt Union." The judicial investigation, it seems to me, fromthis point of view cannot fail to examine the work of the news­papers "EI Popular," "La Voz de Mexico," and some collab-

32

orators of "El Nacional." I am not referring to criticism ofmy convictions, for such criticism, even though most severe,is the most elementary democratic right of everybody. But"La Voz de :\-texico" and "EI Popular" have never occupiedthemselves with such criticism.

I recall that many times they have accused me of con­nections with all the reactionary circles in Mexico as well asabroad; in one speech Toledano declared that I am preparinga general strike against the Cardenas government; in "E! Ma­chete'" and afteT\vard in "La Voz de Mexico" they accuse me.every Sunday, of preparing a revolution together with GeneralCedillo and many other real or supposed counter-revolution­aries; they pictured me in secret sessions with a certain Dr.Atl; in collaboration with the German fascists in Mexico, etc.etc. 'n recent times "Futuro," "EI Popular," as well as "LaVOl de Mexico," systematically repeat that I am in secretcontact with the reactionary U. S. congressman Dies and thatI gave him certain information against Mexico. All these ac­cusations, it is easy to see, make no sense, for they ascribe tome acts which are not only contrary to my convictions andmy life's work, but also against my immediat~ interests, sinceI would h3ve to lose all reason to commit disloyal acts against'he Mexican government which has accorded me such gen-nous hospitality. . . .

"need but recall that through the preSs I have called uponmy accusers repeatedly to bring their case before an impartialcommission, appointed by the government or the (govern­ment) Party of the Mexican Revolution, in order to publiclyexamine the accusations made against me. Toledano and theCommunist Party chiefs have always been careful enoughnot to accept my propositioq.

With this , do not wish to say that Toledano and theCommunist Party chiefs took, direct part in preparing the at­tempt against me. The G.PU has a strict division of labor.Known persons are assigned the task of propagating the sland­ers against me~ Lesser known but more serious agents are as­signed the task of assassination. Nevertheless Mr. Toledano isno youngster. He knows perfectly well the methods of theGPU, particularly the systematic persecution to' which themembers of my family, my friends and I have been and. areexposed throughout the world. It is no secret to' Toledano thatthe GPU is out to annihilate me physically. I am tt-ereforewithin my rights in saying that, in occupying himself sys­tematically with the poisonous campaign against me, Mr.Toledano took part in the moral preparation of the terroristact. Consequently Toledano as a witness should be of immenseinterest to the investigation.

It cannot be .doubted in t~e least that the former andpresent chiefs of the Comm.unist Party know who is the localdirector of the GPU. Permit me also to assume that David Al­faro Siqueiros, who took part in the civil war in Spain as anactive Stalinist; may also know who are the most importantand active GPU members, Spanish, Mexican, and of other na­tionalities who are arriving at different times in Mexico, es'"pecially via Paris. The questioning of the previous and thepresent general secretary of the Communist Party and also ofSiqueiros, would helR,Y~ry much to throw light on t.he insti­gators of the assassmatlOn attempt and together With themdiscover their accomplices.

LEON TROTSKY