(Militant, No. 538, 6 February 1981, p. 7)
“The Observer” claims to uphold democracy, particularly “freedom of the press”. Yet after a direct attack on ‘Militant’ in its editorial, this champion of “press freedom” has allowed us only a token right of reply, printing our answering letter with crucial points cut out. The deleted parts are shown in the full letter below. To add insult to injury, they repeated the attack on ‘Militant’ in last week’s ‘Observer’. Their editor’s cuts [Connor Cruise O’Brien, the Observer’s “Editor-in-Chief” was formerly right-wing Labour MP in the Irish Parliament] show that they are not prepared to print our comments on their role. They do not want their readers to see our full reply. They are no interested in printing the truth. So much for press freedom!
The editorial in the ‘Observer’ on January 25 squealed with anguish at the result of the Labour Party special conference, which marked a great step forward for the rank and file of the labour movement.
Like the rest of the kept, capitalist press, it demanded that the left in the Labour Party be stopped, otherwise, it admitted, in the next election with capitalism in a continuing crisis “the country will turn to a left dominated Labour Party.”
But in making their demands to Labour leader Mr Foot, they called on him to “tackle head-on people like the Militant Tendency, whose belief in parliamentary democracy is a sham.” In the letter below, which has been sent to the ‘Observer’, editor of ‘Militant’ Peter Taaffe replies to this remark:
Dear Sir
The ‘Observer’(25 January) claims that ‘Militant’s’ “belief in Parliamentary democracy is a sham.” Yet no evidence in produced to justify this charge. You merely echo your right-wing Labour friends.
‘Militant’, unlike the capitalists and their press, unequivocally supports all democratic rights, the right to strike, freedom of assembly, a free press, and above all the right to vote. We have called for a Labour government to introduce into Parliament an enabling bill to nationalise the 200 monopolies and introduce a socialist plan of production.
In a socialist Britain, pro-capitalist parties like the Tories and Liberals would have every right to exist, to fight for their ideas, and to form an alternative government.
But the undemocratic ownership of the press by a handful of millionaires would, of course, be ended. All press facilities would be nationalised under democratic workers’ control and management. Then all parties, in proportion to their support, would be allowed access to the press.
What could be more democratic than this?
It is the capitalists and their press, including the ‘Observer’, whose belief in democracy is a”sham”.
We do not have freedom of the press in Britain. Five millionaires, soon to be four, control most of the press. They are overwhelmingly biased against labour and particularly its left wing. They spew out the kind of poison against the labour movement as shown by your editorial.
It is the capitalists and their servants in the press who will challenge democratic rights once they see that their system is threatened. The ‘Observer’ and other capitalist newspapers cheer on the Tories in Britain in their attack on the trade unions, while hypocritically denouncing limitations on the trade unions in Poland.
Similar distortions are shown in your treatment of the issue of democracy in the labour movement. You can claim that the Labour party conference delegates were against the idea of “one man, one vote.”
On the contrary, the electoral college allows for the full participation of all active Labour Party members in the decisions of the Labour Party. Every member can attend their branch and elect delegates to the General Management Committee.
It is those who take the trouble to go to the polling booth who elect the government. Why not the same rules for political parties?
The right wing want to dissolve the Labour Party into the Labour voters. They want a parliamentary fan club and not a critically aware and participating rank and file. Far better, in their view, to have passive, dues-paying members who can be manipulated by the mass media, which in the last week has clearly shown it favours Labour’s right wing as opposed to the left.
Your attacks on ‘Militant’ and particularly your ridiculous claims about out opposition to “democracy,” will cut no ice with the rank and file of the Labour Party.
The right wing have lost the argument on policy and programme. That is why they are preparing to stab the labour movement in the back and form a Social Democratic Party. However, despite any temporary victories they will not succeed. From the present struggle can come a revitalised Labour Party determined to implement socialist policies.
Your fraternally
P. Taaffe (Editor)
Schreibe einen Kommentar