Our readers speak out

Scan page 15

Australia

Dear editor, Thank you so much for sending Socialist Action in 1985, and also some of your theoretical publications. It is unusual to be able to receive U.S. left papers so promptly and regularly.

In an earlier letter I explained that I am an "organized supporter" of the Australian SWP. I and a handful of other comrades have formed a small discussion group to look at the degeneration of the Australian SWP, the permanent revolution/workers' and farmers' government debate, and the Central American and South African revolutions.

We are supporters of the Fourth International and agree in general with the politics expressed in Socialist Action.

I would have been unable to keep up to date on developments in the International if not for contact with you. We value this contact very highly. We will try to keep you informed of developments in Australia and hope to hear from you soon.

A reader, Australia Bus boycott Dear editor, The article about E.D. Nixon and the Montgomery bus boycott in the January 1985 issue left out some little-known, yet important facts.

The bus boycott of 1955-1956 was successful due to the organizational leadership of E.D. Nixon. But the boycott was only one aspect of the struggle. A whole support system of the Black community was organized by the Montgomery Improvement Asso -ciation, led by E.D. Nixon.

For the boycott to be successful, money had to be raised to aid the Black community and to run an alternative transportation system to get people to work.

Through donations of station wagons and car pools, E.D. Nixon was able to keep people off the buses-and still employed. Cars, trucks, and station wagons were kept in repair, and young unemployed Korean War veterans were the drivers of this alternative bus system.

The biggest myth of this year-long struggle was that it was pacifistic. The truth is that, although the boycott was nonviolent, in order to keep the alternative system running it was imperative that vehicles continue to run, free from the violence of the police and the Ku Klux Klan.

The young drivers with their Korean War expertise were able to keep their vehicles free from harm. Because of this tactic of self-defense, few vehicles were detained from their schedules by the racists.

It is this combined aspect of mass action and self-defense that most chroniclers of the Montgomery bus boycott have consciously overlooked. This is also why E.D. Nixon was not invited to the 10th, 20th, or 25th anniversaries of the event in Montgomery-even though he was the key organizer of the victory.

On the 10th anniversary of the boycott, I was able to meet and hear E.D. Nixon give his account of these events at a Militant Labor Forum in New York City.

Roland Sheppard, San Francisco Sparrow Dear editor, Following is an addition to the recent Socialist Action article containing excerpts of my opening remarks at the Ray Sparrow memorial meeting, held in San Francisco on Dec. 15, 1985.

There were two Ray Sparrow memorial meetings in San Francisco. The first was held at the Socialist Workers Party bookstore on Dec. 14. Attendance at the SWP meeting was by invitation only, even though Mary-Alice Waters, a national leader of the SWP, was the main speaker. Former comrades, friends, and even relatives of Ray Sparrow were not invited. A $3 donation was requested at the door and there was a charge for refreshments. The result was a small meeting.

The nature of the projected SWP meeting became known well in advance. Therefore, at the urging of many non-invitees, another meeting was organized, a public gathering to which ALL would be invited and given the floor, if requested. The meeting was held at the ILWU, Local 6 hall and 112 attended. In socialist tradition there was no admission charge.

The San Francisco SWP was invited to send a speaker, but did not answer our letter.

Asher Harer, San Francisco Clarification Dear editor, In your September 1985 issue Milton Alvin said, in his tribute to Cannon and Trotsky, that after Cannon and his associates were expelled from the Communist Party in 1928, they "formed a new organization and went about the business of building a new party."

This is not accurate and misleading at best. The new organization, the Communist League of America, had absolutely no intention or aim of building a new party when it was founded in 1929. Nor did it have such an aim in 1930 or 1931 or 1932. The very idea of building a new party was not raised by Cannon or anyone else in the CLA until 1933.

The CLA was dedicated up until then, during the first five years of American Trotskyism, to reform -ing the Communist Party and seeking the expelled members' reinstatement in the CP. This is amply documented in the two recent Monad Press books of Cannon's writing during that period: "The Left Opposition in the U.S. 1928-31" and "The Communist League of America 1932-34." But it is also clearly stated in Cannon's "History of American Trotskyism," published more than 40 years ago.

G.B., New York A response Dear G.B., Thank you for your clari -fication. In the paragraph following the sentence you quote in your letter, Milton Alvin pointed out that Cannon and his associates organized themselves as a public faction of the Communist Party.

Alvin stated: "They (the Trotskyists) concentrated upon the Communist Party, where they had never had a hearing for their views, and considered themselves an unjustly expelled faction, demanding that they be readmitted to the Communist Party with democratic rights."

You are correct, however, to point out that at the outset they sought to reform the CP and not to build an opposing party. We made this point in an editorial statement in our first issue of Socialist Action (December 1983). We stated that after their expulsion from the CP, the supporters of Leon Trotsky "formed a public faction of the CP, becoming a separate political party only after the CP had irretrievably moved from revolutionary positions."

The editor An error Dear editor, The December 1985 issue reported incorrectly that the Cincinnati branch of Socialist Action had succeeded in helping students to set up Students for Socialist Action groups on four area campuses. Cincinnati SA is actively working with student supporters on three campuses, not four.

We are proud of this achievement and have every reason to be optimistic about the coming year.

Rick Mitts, Cincinnati We welcome letters from our readers. Please keep them brief. Where necessary they will be abridged.

Scan page 16

SOCiAList Action