Congratulations on your predictabilityl You've done cxactly some of my less naive friends told me you would do.
I received a copy of the Bahro appeal the day belare the Sociulist Challenge issue artacking CommuLISE BICHECS responding to the appeal. already signed- and Expected some form of apology in the Not a bit of fit Instead 1 find in last week's issue (1 June) that in company Geoff Koberts apparently been stung signing by your reproaches. The whole thing has the air of a cleveri worked manoeuvre of the 'heads 1 win, tails you lose" variety. Searching around for an explanation, I see that this business coincides thing of a propaganda offensive against Communist This offensive contains two main predicament. The first is that anti-CP elements that perhaps explain opportunism reflected Pennington's article, 'Vote Labour, but fight Labourism", where he states that candidates should not be stood against the CP where this may be seen as sectarianism.
Th ehet to Pechint on, the :
whether Socialist SCUZIZR ML WACLAEE CCIl stris tipe of logi would justily anf type of logic would justify any nitpick distortion, becomes small wonder that the Socialist Workers Party nothing to do with it.
The other element, also present in Pennington's apology 471219313. 1318 stratege sim oE *taking advantage of the crisis in the ht tus contert. the above mentioned opportunism requires that ACC C ACRIBICI fact that hardly makes a Wil Manty 1 Horine sent it off comrade Aaronoritch overlooks. Yes, we are very much in favour of 'unity over matters such as Bahro'. But two CP signatories out of a purty of some 25,000 members. neither of them from its lesdenhip protest, so it isall the more important for us to fight needless crucity. But Socialist Challenge seems reluctant to take upissues which have not been specifically mentioned in the wocks of trotsky and Marx — such as acted positively sadly PAUL ANDREWS (South London) and орел posaible interests; uremuttinig criticism if thes -310 05 HUKWICICYE That would not make clectoral support put of the question that it seemed to do just that. - it was a weakness of Bob's article