against North Vietnam from a routine minor place to a central position in the news of the week, The April 3 issue announced that they succeeded in getting together "over 300 Young Socialists" from “London, the Midlands, Yorkshire and. South Wales" to join "2,000 members of the Indian’ Workers Association" who were marching in London against the jailing of Communists in India and in favor of "the restoration of civil rights" in that country. After participating in the march of the Indians and attending a meeting protesting the violation of civil liberties in India, the Young Socialists went to an SLL meeting to protest the imperialist aggression in Vietnam. While the report in The Newsletter indicates that the parade of 2,000 members of the *A brief biography of Slaughter appeared in the January 2, 1965, Newsletter under the headline, "Cliff Slaughter to work full-time for SLL.” We are told that besides remaining in the Communist party from an early age until after the Hungarian events of 1956, when he began to move in the direction of Trotskyism, he is a Cambridge man. who became a Leeds University lecturer, a post he is now leaving. We utilize the occasion to offer our congratulations to Slaughter. for. his decision to join the ranks of full-time revolutionists, although we must say that the headline about it in The Newsletter is something of a journalistic curiosity like: “48-YEAR-OLD MAID GETS MARRIED."
~P Bax
Indian Workers Association was aimed at pressuring the Congress government in India to release the more than 1,000 political prisoners in dungeons there, the headline over the article reads, "3,000 MARCH AGAINST VIETNAM WAR ana imprisonment of Indian Communists." (The difference in type face appears in the original. )
What led the leaders of the SLL to decide to try to break out of their rut and have The Newsletter give the Vietnam events the special prominence they deserve is not clear, since if any selfcriticism was made, they have kept it to themselves. Perhaps the use of gas by the Pentagon shocked them, as it did others in Britain, to realization of the importance of the situation; or perhaps they suddenly became concerned over the possibility of being outflanked. from the left on this issue by figures like Bertrand Russell, who saw the need to speak out and go into action; or, in their own way, they may have responded to criticism from some source or other, Whatever the reasons, we repeat that we are glad to see the SLL make an attempt to join the rest of the international socialist and radical movement in placing the struggle against American aggression in North Vietnam at the top of the agenda where it belongs. Let us hope that this is not a mere spasmodic action, There is every reason. to close ranks in face of the common enemy in this grave’ crisis. The Qualitative Turn in Vietnam _
Let us turn now to Slaughter's apologia. It was the position of the Fourth International from the time it happened that the bombings of North Vietnam, carried out February 7 and 8 under orders from President Johnson, marked a qualitative turn in the long, - bloody intervention of American imperialism in the civil war in South Vietnam. This conclusion was reached by many others who saw that the American move toward the north was aimed not only at the Democratic Republic of Vietnam but at the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and, indeed, the freedom struggle throughout the world; and that it posed the clear. threat of ending in the catastrophe of nuclear war.
~The SLL leaders, however, gave no evidence of a similar assessment .. They continued as if they had failed to recognize a aunctataye change in the situation.
What little they did print in their press about the war in Vietnam was not basically wrong -- there was no conscious betrayal. But the articles on this topic declined and even vanished from the official organ of the SLL precisely as the American bombers extended and increased their forays, the "escalation" rose, and the world crisis deepened, This sag and collapse in propaganda constituted a grave default in leadership, occurring as it did _at_a crucial time. It was this that I called attention to and sought to explain as due to acceptance of Wilson's estimate of the lack of gravity of the.
situation despite the SLL's opposition to Wilson's policies.«
Didntt Omit. "All Mention"
In trying to answer, Slaughter follows a curious procedure, He goes down the list of facts I cited from successive issues of The Newsletter, showing the way the handling of Vietnam was subordinated to other topics and the way the world crisis was played down, and displays astonishment that there should be any criticism. In the March 6 and 13 issues, where not a single article on the Vietnam crisis appeared, Slaughter seeks to apologize by pointing to the fact that mention of Vietnam could be found by carefully searching other articles, (He says it is a "lie that we omitted all mention of the struggle in Vietnam"; but I didn't say "mention." I called attention to the absence of articles.). In other words, instead of admitting how wrong The Newsletter was in losing its usually strident voice in face of the flare-up of perhaps the greatest crisis since the end of World War II, he finds nothing wrong with the judgment of the editors in curtailing their handling of the war in Vietnam
“Slaughter shows little restraint in distorting what I said. On this particular point the distortion is particularly bad. "Our readers," says Slaughter, "will be amazed to learn that The Newsletter and the Socialist Labour League have capitulated to.imperialism over the war in Vietnam, and that, in particular, we 'taccept Wilson's view of the reality as not inaccurate. . .'!" The phrase ascribed to me is torn from the following: "By depreciating the colonial revolution, they are led to concede greater possibilities than are open to Peking and Moscow in meeting the demands of American imperialism. By believing it is possible for the two bureaucracies to get away with a crass sell-out in Vietnam -- and that this will satisfy the ravenous appetite of U.S. imperialism! -- they come to the position that the danger of a chain reaction in Vietnam, leading to another world war, is not too great. In brief, their course of action shows that they accept Wilson's view of the reality as not inaccurate, whatever they may- think of his policies, and that they therefore believe the whole question of American aggression in Vietnam is not as important as, say, the struggle for immediate higher, back-dated old-age pensions in Britain. Ultraleftism thus displays its opposite side, opportunism.
Instead of attempting to answer this argumentation based on the hard evidence of what had (and had not) appeared in The Newsletter, Slaughter chose to distort what I said, tearing a Single phrase out of context and making me appear to accuse the SLL leaders of committing something worse than is indicated in my carefully | weighed statement. He did not learn such methods in the school of Trotskyism}
and tries to brazen it out by shouting, "Liar!" at their critic.+
Slaughter inadvertently reveals that he is perfectly aware of the lapse of the SLL press in the Vietnam situation:
"we understand very well that the kind of politics engaged in-by Hansen and his friends measures everything in terms of column inches; but we must inform him that The Newsletter is not just a weekly commentary, it is an organiser of thousands of workers and it will be judged by the success of that active movement,
Slaughter says again: “His [Hansen's] 'fight' on Vietnam is entirely a question of writing articles, but for us it is above all a question of building the real mov ement to smash the imperialist — governments which carry through the colonial wars."
In plain language, The Newsletter did not have many column inches or many articles on Vietnam in the most crucial weeks; this topic was admittedly pushed out of the center of attention and even reduced to merely passing mention; but this default was all right because The Newsletter, you see, is “an organiser of thousands of | workers") It is only peculiar to the “kind of politics ongaged 3 in by Hengen and his friends" to expect something better.
Pigeonhole Thinking
Slaughter thus drives a wedge between propaganda and organization, and downgrades revolutionary-socialist. propaganda as if it were in contradiction to organizing workers. This may be what Slaughter learned in practical experience at Leeds University, at _ Cambridge and in his formative years in the Communist party before 1956. But such a vulgar empiricist concept has nothing in common with the school of Trotskyism, Slaughter, unfortunately, still displays all too many vestiges of his training under bad teachers,
it is true that in our times we have seen instances where revolutionary movements have moved ahead and even won power despite propaganda that was in contradiction to the inherent logic and ultimate aims of the mass struggle. The victories in Yugoslavia and China are outstanding examples. The latest one, a most impressive .
*In another instance, Slaughter says that Hansen "omits to mention that this same front-page article Lin the March 20 issue of The Newsletter] puts the same demands which he called ‘correct! a& month earlier.” Slaughter is blinded by his eagerness to prove ime a iar. I not only stated specifically that "The article ends with a paragraph repeating the slogans issued by the 'International Committee!"; I added that "The author, Robert James, is to be congratulated for his diligence in getting them in the same order as the official statement.’ Is Slaughter as careless as this about the facts in all his writings, or was his misrepresentation deliberate?
instance, is Cuba although this case is considerably different since the leadership was an honest one and moved toward revolutionarysocialist positions during the course of the revolution itself. But it is a gross departure from-the concepts of revolutionary socialism to either advocate or justify. conducting propaganda in contradiction to revolutionary action.
The reason for this is the enormous role which political, consciousness plays in a socialist revolution. The higher the level of consciousness among the revolutionists and the vanguard of the working masses, the easier becomes the revolutionary victory. The written and spoken word are intimately linked with organization and action, the two sides of the process being bound up with the aims established in successive stages of the revolutionary process.
That is why Trotsky, for one, put such stress on correct and effective propaganda, particularly at crucial turns in the world situation. He taught us that a few days at a moment like the open-~ ing of a war can outweigh years of ordinary events in the life and development. of a revolutionary party. Such moments test the capacities of a revolutionary leadership, above all its independence and its ability to judge reality correctly in the heat of the class struggle.
Is it so difficult to understand what is involved? Let us take a case. It is Slaughter's boast that The Newsletter is "the organiser of thousands of workers."".§ Good. On what issues is it organizing these thousands of workers? On the issues featured in the columns of The Newsletter. The editors, if they are to live up to. revolutionary socialist principles, have no choice but to single out those issues that are of crucial importance to the work= ing class,
It is true that considerable flexibility is demanded to meet. the current level of consciousness of the workers -- on this the Trotskyist movement has much to offer, as is evidenced by the Transition Program and its development. Nevertheless, the duty to speak out and campaign in appropriate form on the substance of the crucial issues remains.
The opening of the U.S. war on North Vietnam was such an issue. It was an imperialist aggression against a colonial country; it was an imperialist attack aimed at the workers states; it offered the clear threat of escalating into a nuclear war, thereby involving the fate of all of humanity in the most literal sense. To this should be added the fear, horror, revulsion and indignation that swept the world, making the task of mobilizing the opposition easier. Even: in ‘Britain. a cry of alarm was raised by such figures as Bertrand Russell. Yet in. the face of this, The Newsletter acted as if it were paralyzed, incapable. of responding - $0 the events. Obviously it was time for someone to build a fire under the editor's chair,
-32- . "
Lots of Inches, Well Displayed
Having sought to justify giving only passing mention to Viet~ nam while the rest of the world shuddered at the prospect of going over the brink into a nuclear catastrophe, our newly fledged fulltime leader of the SLL offers us a variant. The Newsletter was a bit short in column inches and articles for five crucial weeks? So what! You should see the March 27 issue "with its front page almost entirely devoted to the Vietnam war and notice of a public rally on the question in London."
To this we respond, as indicated above: Excellent! A most welcome change! We congratulate the editors, including Slaughter, for giving signs of life; and now that they are awake we hope they stay awake, although their erratic behavior leaves room for doubt that this will be the case. But what then becomes of the previous argument? Is the number of column inches and the number of articles and the way they are featured of importance after all? Then why the nonsense about its being a mark of a different "kind of politics" to judge the quantity of material and its placement as indicative ‘of how a leadership sizes up a situation? Has Slaughter suddenly. switched and gone over to that kind of politics? Or is it simply that any argument is good, no matter how contradictory, so long as Slaughter is the one who runs it through his typewriter?
The new argument about the lots of inches, well displayed, does not save the day for this attorney, He has simply escalated himself into new difficulties... In case he hasn't noticed, we call Slaughter's attention to.the fact that once again the point of qualitative change rears its ugly’ head. What caused the editors of The Newsletter to suddenly switch and decide to give central place to the war in Vietnam after giving it merely passing mention? When did the qualitative point of change in the war occur that is reflected in this qualitative change in the amount and placement of ropaganda ? mo
Was it when the Pentagon began bombing North Vietnam; or, say, when the U.S. admitted using gas; or when Bertrand Russell made his eloquent denunciation of the Wilson government; or, perhaps, when the editor discovered flames arising around the seat of his chair?
If the qualitative point was February 7, then The Newsletter was wrong in the way it handled its propaganda at the outbreak o the crisis. This could only be due to an incorrect estimate of the situation, which must then be explained. If it was some other date, then the SLL leaders are guilty of failing to offer the revolutionary-socialist movement the correct date. They are guilty at the same time of failing to make public the analysis through which they arrived at that date, although the analysis is all the more important in view of the widespread conclusion, particularly outside of Britain, that it was the earlier date of February 7.
55
Now we come to the most devastating argument of all. Only a man with a Cambridge degree and much experience as a university lecturer could have thought it up. In response to our criticisms, he says, "You're anothert"
Against our analysis of the reasons behind The Newsletter's yielding to imperialist pressure, Slaughter refers to accusations levelled by the SLL leaders against the Socialist Workers party which, he claims, show that it has "betrayed." The accusations really reflect the ultraleft position of the SLL leadership; but» let us suppose that there were substance to them -- does this then justify the SLL yielding to imperialist pressure? It would seem wiser, and certainly much closer to Leninism, for the SLL leaders to seek the source of their own error in order to avoid repeating it again, instead of responding with a high-pitched scream: "So what, you're another!"
The Error in the Congo Crisis
As I indicated in my previous article, the SLL was guilty only a short time ago of yielding to imperialist pressure on a different occasion -- when the American and Belgian imperialists, with the aid of the Wilson government, attacked Stanleyville. An article in The Newsletter echoed the imperialist propaganda about the Congo freedom fighters shooting "helpless white and coloured women and. children," .
Ernest Germain drew attention to this shameful yielding to imperialist pressure. A small rectification then appeared in The. Newsletter, blame for the error being pinned on the hapless author of the offending article. But no lessons were drawn on how it was possible for something as monstrous as that to have appeared in The Newsletter. It was simply swept under the rug; and a campaign was hastily opened against Germain, And, of course, since Germain is regarded as a main enemy of some concern from the ultraleft viewpoint of the SLL leaders, who look at the outside world as a reactionary mass with little to distinguish one part from another, they spared neither articles nor column inches on this foe even though much else of Tmportance to the British working class had to go by the board. ;
When a second error occurred, this time in relation to Vietnam, another colonial area under attack from imperialism, it was legitimate to ask if there were not some relationship between the two errors. In the final analysis they would seem to have a common origin in the basic SLL position of minimizing the importance of the colonial revolution, the position that led them to split from the International Committee, to set up a rump committee composed of two sections of the International Committee, and to refuse to join in unifying the world Trotskyist movement. Is this right or wrong? Slaughter does not take up the question. =: m
In fact, far from discussing the relation between the two errors, he denies there was any error in The Newsletter's handling. of Vietnam and remains tight-lipped about the SLL yielding to imperialist pressure during the Congo crisis. By shouting about -unrelated matters, he no doubt hopes to divert attention from the unsavory lapse that occurred during the Congo events. A full-time official | in the SLL has his share of pettifogging duties it seems. And the Other Half of the "International Committee"?
The SLL leadership, as we have seen, finally came around to. the conclusion that it would be costly to continue relegating the war in Vietnam to such a low place in priorities as merely passing mention, But the SLL constitutes only half of the rump "Interna~ tional Committee," the other half peing the Verité group in France,
In my previous article, I called attention to the strange silence of this half of the "International.Committee" on the war in- Vietnam. Does this group agree with the declaration on this subject published in the February 27 issue of The Newsletter under the name of the "International Committee"? —Do they disagree? Why don't they translate it and print it in France? Are they ashamed of it? |
Perhaps the French half of the: International Committee" is publishing hundreds of column centimeters, or distributing leaflets, or organizing rallies and making speeches. about the situation in Vietnam. If so, why didn't Slaughter include this information among his boasts? Is he ashamed of what they're writing or saying or doing? ae a
Unfortunately, there may be good reason for Slaughter's silence, He may not be hiding anything. He may just have nothing to report. Out of interest in the subject, we initiated inquiries but were unable to locate a single item on Vietnam produced by the French half of the "International Committee" since February 7, not even a translation of the passing "mention" featured in The News= lett er.
We would like very much to see these colleagues and collaborators of the SLL also come to life, even if still more belatedly than their British co-thinkers, and join in actively opposing the dirty colonial war being waged by American imperialism in Vietnam.
Can the British half of the “International Committee" get its French half slapped awake around this issue? We hope so, as it would be strange indeed if a paper that is "an organiser of thousands of workers" and which is "rapidly becoming the recognised spokesman of revolutionary Marxism in the international Trotskyist movement," as Slaughter boasts, could not even prod its colleagues across the Channel to- stand up "and mumble something in face of the threat of nuclear war.
We are waiting, Slaughter, for your report on this. Just. give us the facts about the activities of the Verité group; no embellishments, please, about “outrageous lies and slanders." The subject is not without interest, for if the British half of the "International Committee" is able to organize thousands of workers by failing to recognize the importance of a world crisis until it is necessary to run to catch up with the crowd, the French half, by maintaining a graveyard silence, may be organizing them by the tens of thousands, Shouldn't a tactical discovery as revolutionary as this.be passed on, even if it has to be demeaned by being put in the form of an article, thereby becoming subject. to measurement in column inches?
OPEN LETTER TO THE COMRADES OF THE ISSP (REFORMIST )
(The following is a translation of an Open Letter published in the April 8 issue of Sama Samajaya, the Singhalese weekly of the Lanka Sama Sama ja Party Revolutionary), to the reformist LSSP whose leaders participated in the coalition defeated in the recent elections. in Ceylon. The letter is signed by Edmund Samarakoddy,— as secretary of the LSSP(R). i
tok 4 ' Dear Comrades,
‘This letter is addressed to you in the hope that you ‘will reflect on the matters mentioned herein and adopt the course of action that is consistent with a revolutionary orientation of your party.
It is about nine months. since you the ma jority of comrades of the LSSP took the decision to enter the SLFP [Sri Lanka Freedom party] government led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike and to form an SLFP- LSSP. coalition government. . When you made that decision, we of the minority who stood categorically opposed to your view continued on thé basis of the programme of the LSSP adopted at the Unity Congress of 1951 and we have functioned since then as the LSSP (Revolutionary). Shortly afterwards you were aware that the LSSP(R) was recognised bythe governing bodies of the Fourth International as the Ceylon sec-" tion of the Fourth. International.
In pursuance of your decision to form a coalition government with the SLFP, three members of your party became ministers of the SLFP-LSSP coalition government. It was your perspective that on the basis of a "14=point programme" and with your three ministers in the’ cabinet you would be able through parliament to oppose and gradually eliminate the capitalists and the imperialists and lay the founda-
—3G—
tions of socialism, You are aware that the cagalition government functioned for six months, from:dJune to December, 1964. It is true that six months is too short a period for achievements. But.six . months was more than sufficient for your party and the allies of your party to have won over the confidence'of the majority of the workers, peasants and the toilers that a coalition government with the SLFP led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the road to progress and. socialism, oy
_ After the defeat in parliament of the coalition government on December 3, 1964, you and the SLFP in your wisdom decided. to go to the polls and dissolved Parliament on December 17. The general elections have come and gone but the SLFP-LSSP coalition is not back in office. The UNP [United National party] and their allies have formed a government in parliament. The SLFP and your party are now opposition parties in Parliament. With the victory of the UNP and its allies you have now come to a halt on the road of socialism through a coalition government with the SLFP. As the coalition government does not now exist, the road through coalition with the SLFP remains closed, You have now two possible courses of action in this predicament. The one is to continue your alliance. with the SLFP and together with the SLFP seek to win mass support for the-. SLFP-LSSP-CP. front in the perspective of winning a parliamentary majority in the next elections. The other course of action is to abandon all hopes of achieving socialism through a coalition in parliament and adopt the road of irreconcilable class struggle against the capitalist class and against the capitalist government, The question of looking forward for a second coalition with the SLFP in the next elections must be on the basis of a searching inquiry and proper assessment of the consequences of the last coalition of your party and to the working-class movement.
As you had faith in parliamentary elections, it is not improper to refer to the fact of the defeat of the coalition government in the general elections. The election results show that a considerable section of the workers, poor peasants and toilers turned away from you. These sections had lost confidence in you and the SLFP. The failure and inability of your coalition government to take any positive steps to solve the pressing problems of the people generally is the reason for these sections of the working people turning against you. Many thousands of teen-age voters turned against you and voted for the UNP as they found no prospect of finding avenues of employment through the coalition.. These teenage voters have of course been deceived by the UNP that jobs would be available under the government. You are aware that the plantation workers of Indian origin’ turned away rrom you. This is not a matter for surprise. Your party abandoned the struggle for the rights of the plantation workers and supported Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike'ts conspiracy with the prime minister of India to foroibly tear them from their homes in Ceylon ‘and take them to- India. These workers rightly treated you as their enemy. You are also aware that the Tamil minority and other racial minorities like Muslims, Burgh-
37
ers, etc., had quite openly decided not to support you. Your party abandoned the fight against the oppression of the minorities and supported the SLFP policies of discrimination against them and of denying them their rights. The religious minorities, the Hindus, Christians, Catholics also opposed you, as you and the SLFP were openly discriminating against them by your unashamed support of Buddhist clericalism. Owing to discrimination also practiced against certain minority castes, thousands in such castes ceased to support the coalition government.
It is not merely the question of the defeat of the coalition government that should be your concern. You have lost much more than ministerial positions in a bourgeois government. Your search for a new road through coalition with a bourgeois party has led you to abandon the struggle for socialism and your party became a mere agency of the capitalist class, and what is more you were and re= -main linked to capitalist reaction through your support for Sinhala racialism and Buddhist clericalism. Your complete abandonment of all that you stood for and fought for is proved by the fact that when your election campaign began you ceased publishing the Samasama jaya, your Sinhalese weekly and you substituted for it an openly vote=catching and disgusting publication called the Jana Mathaya [public Opinion] catering for Sinhala racialism and Buddhist clericalism. Nothing more was required to prove the complete and total degeneration of the leadership of your party than their behaviour in:the elections. In a situation where a conscious anti- Marxist reactionary movement led by the forces of capitalist reaction were campaigning against the revolutionary socialist. movement the answer of your leaders was to indulge in eulogising the socalled Bandaranaike principles and the public worship of the bourgeois leader Mrs. Bandaranaike, and also by displaying their devo~ tion to Buddhism,
The deeds and misdeeds of the SLFP-LSSP coalition government in office should convince you that your party and the toiling people moved further away from the goal of socialism as a result of this coalition and that the forces of reaction were strengthened. The leadership of your party turned away from the working class and disrupted the developing movement for the struggle for the 21 demands. Your party in coalition permitted the continued enforcement of the wage~freeze policy of the SLFP. The leadership of your party connived at and tolerated the use of the police to break up legitimate strikes of workers. Police assaults on workers took place under the very eyes of your leaders. Thus the interests of the capitalists and imperialists were protected by your coalition government, The policy of class. collaboration practiced by your leadership helped the employers to further exploit the wage earners. The forces of capitalist reaction were strengthened through the coalition. Do you think that you are moving towards the socialist goal when you strengthen the forces of capitalist reaction? You will admit that the opposite is the case, If the goal of socialism is still: dear to you, you must here and now break with the bourgeois SLFP and
forge your links with the workers and toilers and all the oppressed on the basis of identifying yourselves in the struggle against capitalist exploitation in all its forms and against the capitalist system.
The control of the bourgeois parliament is now in the hands of the UNP and its allies. You are opposed to the UNP and you will no doubt seek to fight the UNP government. The UNP government is — a capitalist government and if you mean to undertake seriously the fight against the UNP it is necessary to mobilise all the anticapitalist.forces -- the workers, wage earners, poor peasants, the suffering. middle classes and the oppressed racial and religious and other minorities. The SLFP.is a bourgeois party and you cannot hope to fight. the forces of capitalism, while you have as an ally — a capitalist party. To fight and defeat the UNP government and the capitalist class you must break with the bourgeois SLFP. To fight. and defeat the UNP, you must support the class struggle of the workers against the employers. To mobilise all the oppressed racial and religious groups, you must break with the Sinhala chauvinism and | Buddhist clericalism of the SLFP. All this means the imperative need for you to break with the policies you followed since coalition and to return to revolutionary politics. . Many of you have no doubt a desire to return to the programme of. the revolutionary party. But your leaders stand in the way. Your leaders who have degenerated beyond recognition will not and cannot change and are not ready to break with their:bourgeois allies -- the SLFP. To take the only road: leading to socialism you must. leave the leaders where they wish to remain. The unsoiled banner of the revolution is in the custody of the LSSP (Revolutionary). All of you who desire to build the revolutionary movement and the party must today decide to take the road back to the party -- the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (Revolutionary); the Ceylon section of the FOURTH INTERNATIONAL.
Yours fraternally, |
Edmund Samarakkody
NEXT WEEK
A report from Algiers: "The Algerian Revo-
“lution Again in Movement," by Henri Dumoulin.
Janeen adsovotteeseacrteravsssunsonss steve savaaesetseeneseegsenaernsnnessansearesaneannesssOVUGbdbEEDEZYAELTOSOTINCSOEDA ESO ETERDEAARSTEBNELOL EHO OGES LOE DEOPESSEDDESOUS OTD HeecoseasossseniatontonsepatcpssseeuseorstiesT>
Directeur-Gérant: Pierre FRANK. . 1! &diteur)..