FOOTNOTE ON AN SLL HEADLINE
By Joseph Hansen
Several weeks ago, in an article dealing with the partial paralysis displayed by the leadership of the Socialist Labour League in. face of the opening of the imperialist war against North Vietnam, I credited them with having finally given evidence of an effort to correct their course. There were encouraging signs that they might: at long last elevate this great world crisis from peripheral atten-~ tion in their press to the central position it demands.
Among these signs was an article by Robert James in the April 3 Newsletter reporting how "over 300 Young Socialists" from "London, the Midlands, Yorkshire and South Wales" had joined a march of some 2,000 members. of the Indian Workers. Association demonstrating in London’ against the jailing of Communists in India. After participating in the march and attending a rally at Hammersmith on the situation in India, the 300 Young Socialists went to an SLL meeting at the New Ambassadors Hotel to protest the imperialist aggression in Vietnam, The banner headline over this report in The Newsletter was a novel one. The first part, in very large type, read: 3,000 MARCH AGAINST VIETNAM WAR." The second part, in much smaller type, read: "and imprisonment of Indian Communists."
*"Once Again -- the SLL and Vietnam." World Outlook, April 16. -
~32e
- From the headline, one could conclude that 3,000 demonstrators had marched against the war in Vietnam and had also protested the imprisonment of Indian Communists. The article itself, however, did not clearly bear this out. It was curious, for instance, that the accompanying pictures did not show banners against the Vietnam war at the head of the procession. The photographs, in fact, did not correspond with the headline, but appeared to be in harmony with a brief statement by James in the body of his article that the 2,000 Indians marched "Behind IWA banners and posters demanding the restoration of civil rights..." It was good that Young Socialists should display solidarity with Indian workers in London protesting the unjust imprisonment of Communists in India; but what about the headline representing the march as mainly against the war in Vietnam? This remained obscure,
It was with some interest, therefore, that we awaited the report of the Young Socialists themselves, which could be expected to appear in the next issue of their monthly paper Keep Left. - This, no doubt, would clarify the ambiguous handling of the demonstration in The Newsletter, since the Young Socialists actually participated in the march and would have first-hand knowledge of the facts,
Unfortunately, the April issue of Keep Left only deepens the mystery. On the front page an excellent photograph shows a section of the demonstration, The main banner, held by two demonstrators for what looks like..a posed shot by the cameraman, reads: "INDIAN WORKERS ASSOCIATION FOUNDED 1938, GREAT BRITAIN." The caption under the picture declares: "Over 300 Young’: Socialists, fulfilling the promise made at their conference, supported the demonstration: by Indian workers on March 28 (reported on page 8). Young Sociale ists will again show their solidarity with the international working class on May Day in massive demonstrations up and down the country. " Hxcellent as is this display of class solidarity, we note with some astonishment: .not a single word about the war in Vietnam!
Turning to the report on page 8, we have no difficulty in finding the headline; it is at the top of the page: "YS and Indians unite to demand freedom for jailed communists." That is all. Not a single word about the war in Vietnam!
Reading through the article, we do find mention of Vietnam, It appears at the end of the following sentences:
"wo over 2,000 Indian workers set off from Waterloo Bridge, London, to march through the city to Hammersmith Town Hall.
"Ag they approached the Albert Hall, they were cheered by over 300 Young Socialists from London and other areas, They added their chanting demands to those of the Indians to release the Indian Communists and end the brutal war in Vietnam.” ee a,
That finishes the mention of the war in Vietnam. It is the
first mention and the last mention in the article. - There is no other mention, The figure of "3,000" marchers does not appear. Nor is there any account of the SLL meeting that was held after the pro- -test rally about imprisonments in India.
The latter omission is even more surprising, for, to believe the April 3 issue of The Newsletter, the SLL meeting was an important and significant affair, protesting the American imperialist attack against North Vietnam and the role of the Labour government in covering it up. No one less than Gerry Healy, national secretary of the SLL, was the featured speaker. Why then did Keep Left fail to réport this in an article dealing with the very same actions that led the editor of The Newsletter to proclaim in very large type, "3,000 MARCH AGAINST VIETNAM WAR" and in much smaller type "and imprisonment of Indian Communists"?
The conclusion is inescapable. If the Keep Left account is accurate, and we have no reason to doubt the honesty, good intentions, or eyesight of the revolutionary-minded Young Socialists who publish this paper, then 3,000 did not march against the war in Vietnam; and The Newsletter is guilty of using a headline that borrows from the sensationalist -- not socialist -- school of journalism, to say the least. Moreover, it must be concluded that the youthful editors of Keep Left considered that neither the SLL protest meeting nor the remarks of the national secretary of the SLL were important enough to report -- unless, of course, there was something about the meeting that was embarrassing to them and they felt constrained to maintain a diplomatic silence.
If we assume the opposite to be true -- that The Newsletter used an accurate headline, and, in reporting the day's events, presented what was politically important in relation to the march and the two meetings that followed it, then we are reluctantly forced to conclude that the editors of Keep Left are sadly remiss in their socialist duty. Not only are they incapable of getting the most important facts straight about a demonstration in which they participated, they have not yet learned the importance of presenting a correct stand in their press when an imperialist power launches war on_a_ colonial country and a workers state.
We cannot exclude this possibility. In carefully reading the April issue of Keep Left, we could find only a routine article dealing with the situation in Vietnam, a small item shoved down to the bottom of page two. More column inches are devoted in this issue of Keep Left to what is going on in the field of British sports and the scooter market than to the world crisis over Vietnam.
But if this is the truth of the matter, we cannot place all the blame for the abysmal default on the editors of Keep Left. They may have thought it was their duty, or a matter of discipline, to. . imitate the sluggish, routine approach.to Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam which the leaders of the SLL displayed during
242
February and March. At the time the Keep Left staff made up the: April issue they still may not have.grasped, or been told, that the SLL leaders had been tail-ending events: in the greatest crisis since the end of World War II and that this was a very grave error, revealing something about the political level of this leadership. i Meanwhile we are left with the. unsolved mystery of the strange headline in The Newsletter. How.many:was that again -= 3,000?. When that article came across his desk, was the editor perhaps: ’ suffering from a bad case of split vision with overcompensation in the left eye?: Perhaps that headline should have read: "2,000 MARCH AGAINST IMPRISONMENT OF INDIAN COMMUNISTS and 500 against Vietnam war."
If this is 80, we are glad that at least 300. could be got to= gether from "London, the Midlands, Yorkshire and South Wales" to come in on a march for a good Cause; and to stay over for a protest meeting on Vietnam. But we do think that it is not in the interests of revolutionary socialism to exaggerate or to use misleading headlines. The. movement is only made’to look ridiculous by such practices and even a modest action Loses the effectiveness it: could ‘have had,
Imprimerie: 21 rue ataboukir, Panis 2 (imprimé par les soins de Directeur-Gérant : ‘Pierre FRANK. 1'éditeur).