Press Gang

Scan page 5

Hangley jodiges Television cameras, unable to be present outside the Moscow court room where Soviet physicist Yuri Orlov was sentenced to seven years labour and five i years exile, contented themselves with shots of the "shadow trial" in London.

John Macdonald, QC, 'defending' Orlov faced the camera, denouncing the Soviet Union in , ringing Churchillian tones.

British Athletes, he suggesited, who went to compete in the l Moscow Olympic games in 1980 would be giving credibility to a regime of exactly the same kind as athletes honoured with their presence in Berlin in 1936.

He would go down well on Any Questions-that radio discussion programme seemingly held in some eternal Tory party conference.

The Orlov case was that kind of a subject. The 'pop' papers discovered a taste for foreign , trials and all British capitalist papers devoted acres of space to a description of the scene outside the courthouse "sandwiched between a busy rail junction and a military barracks well away from the city centre". (The Times).

Why all this interest in the fate of Orlov? Certainly there is no sign of a principled defence of him against the Stalinist For the capitalist press Orlov is an object, a stick to beat the workers' states.

"Look", they shriek, "You deal with the Soviet Government, you sign Helsinki agreements, you refuse to expand armaments as fast as we would like, and now you stand helpless while the Soviet Union flaunts the fine words it signed on human rights"

The Telegraph "Yuri Orlov defies his accusers" boosted the dissident phyicist to pride of place in their paper.

Leaders in The Telegraph and Mail linked the trial to soviet moves in Africa and the need to combat the Union everywhere. •What do they care, these rage ridden rags, for Orlov or any other victim of the Soviet While their front pages how! about Orlov, their back pages send Scotland winging to Argentina with the tartan blessings of borrowed patriotism.

It is not oppression in the Soviet Union they find distastful-it is the property relations, the fact that though socialism has not been achieved, capitalism has been buried.

That is why Trotskyiststhe only people capable of defending people like Orlovmake no half gestures towards the ravings of the British and capitalist bourgoisies.

We stand for the defence of the Soviet Union against every imperialist attack - unconditional defence. The capitalist press reports of the Orlov trial must be recognised as part of that attack.

of the Workers Socialis League UNI TUNID ¡ LONDON S.

GAL LEDGES ¡ SPREAD NaTo CUPATIOM Issue No. 6, May 1978, includes an assessment of the NUS conference as well as articles on students in the 1960s, the ANL, and Revolutionary Way Forward for Youth.

Available from WSL, 31, Dartmouth Park Hill, London NW5 1HR, Price 10p plus 9p postage.

Scan page 6

SOCIALIST PRESS, Wednesdas 24 May 1978 Charles I forced to call Parliament-ending 'eleven years tyranny'. Dissolves 'Short Parliament' after three weeks, aresting leaders. Scottish army enters England. Peace made at Ripon; England pays £850 a day to Scottish army. Charles forced to call Parliament again. 'Long 1641 Strafford executed under an Act of Attainder reluctantly signed by the King. Reforms, including abolition of Star Chamber, forced through by Parliament. Rebellion breaks out in Ireland. Grand Remonstrance adopted. Charles fails in attempt to arrest five MPs. Leaves London. Civil War breaks out. After Battle of Edgehill Charles advances on London but is stopped by Independents use army to occupy London.

parliamentary traditions Putney debates on tasks of revolution reveal Scots again enter England-this time to support Charles I. Defeated by Cromwell at Preston. 'Presbyterians' in Parliament negotiate with PART THREE by Mark Hyde Naturally, the most prosperous bourgeois areas went over to Parliament, providing a strong base in the southern and eastern regions.

Not a few country gentlethen, concerned steerted MOSKV tot Parliament when came to armed conflict.

Such men had no stomach for standing at the head of the rabble, challenging order and authority.

By no means all merchants were revolutionary, fightersbut the bulk of the middle class rallied.

Richard Baxter, who lived through these great events, spelt out the balance of forces.

With the King were:

"A very great part of the Knights and gentlemen", their tenants and the "rabble" whom they commanded.

With Parliament was a section of the country gentry:

"and the greatest part of Cromwell the tradesmen and freeholders and the middle sort of men, especially in those corporations and counties which depend on clothing and such manufactures"

Yet while it was easy for contemporaries to socially define the basis of Parliament's support, the men now ranged against Charles were by no means a politically homogeneous grouping.

Social storm

On the one hand the growing social storm brought a proliferation of innumerable radical sects, on the other, the bulk of the Parliamentary leadership regretted war, and feared too decisive a victory over the King!

In the counties leading gentry controlled Parliament's armies. This essentially conservative layer wanted only a defensive war and hoped for a negotiated settlement as early as possible.

While fighting the King they always looked nervously back over their shoulders at the poorer yeomen ranks.

They had no desire to take actions so revolutionary as to unleash • social forces that they could not control.

Even tried and tested leaders like Pym and Hampden had no notion of the war ending with the death of Charles-they hoped to force him to recognise the supremacy of the Commons over himself in taking state decisions.

Yet the small tradesmen, artisans and farmers who joined the cause did not trouble themselves with such niceties.

They wanted a war that would redress their grievances and would stop at nothingthey would find their spokesman in Oliver Cromwell.

Not distinguished The man who was to become the leader of the English Revolution had not distinguished himself by 1640.

A God-fearing squire from Buckinghamshire he had sat in Parliament once before in 1628-a thing which, in this period, was a fairly common practice of many country gentlemen and by no means indicative of political ambition.

Perhaps this background helped, for Cromwell's mind was cluttered with the constitutional and legalistic baggage that obscured the outlook of so many of his associates.

Cromwell had no time for those who justified taking up arms by reference to ancient rights', , claiming that they were fighting to save the misguided King from bad coun sellors.

He said of Charles:

"I would as soon discharge my pistol upon him as upon any private man".

The current within the Parliamentary side which shared this outlook was to be known as the 'Independents' (after the more radical independent congregations); the more hesitant and conservative tendency, eager to maintain social control, were known as 'Presbyterians'.

Gulf As the war dragged on, the gulf between these two groupings deepened.

Not unexpectedly, the Royalists proved a serious adversary and could not be by half-hearted military and political command.

The differences between Presbyterians and Independents did not arise as the names seem to imply, over religious matters, but over the conduct of the war.

Promotion on The Independent view was summarised by Cromwell:

"I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows than that which you call a 'gentleman' and is nothing else"

Cromwell's Independents wanted an army that knew its job and fought to win-they called for an end to the system of local forces (which the controlling gentry kept at home to defend their property, and tor the promotion of officers according to merit and talent, not social standing.

Cromwell attacked his general, the Earl of Manchester, in the House of Commons for his handling of the war.

Parliament had actually won its first victory at the battle of Marston Moor but had failed to follow through its opportunity.

Incompetent

It was this experience that gave the impetus to Cromwell's construction of the New Model Army', to the exclusion of incompetent gentlemen from high-ranking forced MPs to resign officers' commissions and make way for better men.

These changes led to the Parliamentary military victory at the Battle of Naseby.

The conflict between the Presbyterians , and the Independents is of central importance to Marxists, because it underlines one of the basic laws of revolution in general, and bourgeois revolution in particular.

Engels himself saw the parallel between this split and the split between 'Girondins' and Jacobins in France one and a half centuries later.

In both cases the bourgeoisie, the class which revolution will benefit, must mobilise the aid of much more radical and desperate petty bourgeois forces to 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1920s:

Parliament' meets November 3. Trained Bands.

Parliament makes alliance-with Scots. New Model Army formed.

Self-Denying Ordnance. Charles I's smashed at Naseby.

Charles surrenders. Laud executed.

splits in army.

Charles. Pride purges Parliament. Monarchy and House of. Lords Charles I's execution.

attain its ends.

Engels noted simply:

«The middle class of the towns brought it on, and the yeomanry of the country districts fought it out... the peasantry furnishes the army In each case the bourgeoisie (which unlike the lower orders has very much to lose in a revolutionary upheaval) is inclined to hold back, and is only victorious in the end because it cannot restrain its followers.

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels draws the conclusion:

.. had it not been for that yeomanry and for the plebeian element in the towns; the bourgeoisie alone would never have fought the matter out to the bitter end ... In order to secure even those conquests of the bourgeoisie that were ripe for gathering at the time, the revolution had to be carried considerably further ... This seems, in fact, to be one of the laws of revolution of bourgeois society"

Cromwell was ready to give leadership to those prepared to "fight the matter out to the bitter end"

It was this that made him great revolutionary. As Trotsky observed in attacking the Labour bureaucrats of the • British workers can learn incomparably more from Cromwell than from MacDonald, Snowden, Webb and other such compromising brethren"

It is in this spirit that we must look at Cromwell's army.

The New Model Army (of which Cromwell was in command of the cavalry, Fairfax being the overall commander) went on after the battle of Naseby to 'mop up' the remaining resistance.

Charles gave himself up to the Scottish allies of Parliament, who duly handed him over.

Disciplined The rapid victory was entirely a consequence of the nature of the New. Model Army. With officers selected according to talent, highlytrained and disciplined, it was a modern fighting force that could easily outmatch the sloppy Royalist forces, based on men who lacked conviction or firm leadership.

Cromwell frightened. his Presbyterian allies by selecting officers purely on the basis of merit.

Even members of the greatly feared revolutionary Sir Thomas Fairfax The Earl of 1 Anabaptist sect were admitted to responsible posts.

The job of destroying the old hierarchy and values began in the army.

Conservatism

It was no accident that Charles I chose to surrender himself to the Scots. He wisely chose to avoid placing himself in the hands of the New Model. (The Scots, by

Scan page 7

of His NAJESTIE'S ARMY of Horte and Foor and of his Excellencies SP THOMAS F FAIREFAX: as they were drawn into feveral Bodies at the BATTAL of NASBIE June the 14r 16 45 Cromwell dismisses the Rump Parliament rmed The GIVe ter weed SOCIALIS;

ADefription Irtue of their Presbyterian pligion, which involved strict ontrol of the lower classes, ere naturally more closely ligned and identified with ›cial conservatism).

Charles even hoped for a ossible alliance with his ersthile Scottish enemies gainst the monster Cromwell ad created.

Of course, to describe tomwell's force as a mere lilitary machine does not do justice. Trotsky called it an New Model had also • give the political leadership the nolitical loaderchin the revolution which no nger came from the House I Commons.

This fact was completely terconnected with its ilitary efficiency. Like the Dops of Trotsky's Red rmy, the Roundheads elieved in the cause they ere defending.

Class enemies The army rank and file as gripped with a desire to ing about the political, ¡cial and economic ruin of i class enemies.

Significantly, with the ing defeated, the Presbyter• leaders proposed the disnding of the New Model rithout back pay-but offerB the opportunity of service The Presbyterians valued lly the military capacity of army-they feared it litically. • Naturally the New Model my resisted this attempt, d Cromwell, despite the doubted pressures upon n from the members of his m class, stuck with the NASBIE army he had created.

The common Royalist enemy having been vanquished it was now a question of where the revolution would end.

Engels' 'law' was working way through.

Parliament tried to disband the army-the army would disband Parliament.

Within the army, rank and file Agitators-representatives -were elected. The unprecedented step of establishing a General Council of the Armyt composed not only generals and officers, but also ordinary soldiers, was taken.

Charles I was then taken out of Parliament's hands and placed under military control.

London was occupied and eleven leading Presbyterians forced out of the House of Commons in August 1647. The army had shown its power.

This was a period of enormous political ferment.

As in any revolution, each stage of the struggle leads to the separation of those who want to go further and those who desire to hold back or consolidate.

No sooner had the conservative Presbyterians been dealt with than a new struggle opened up within the Independent ranks.

Limited monarchy The generals, including Cromwell, were still ready to negotiate for a limited monarchy in which real political power lay with Parliament.

A general plan for such a system was contained in the famous 'Heads of the Proposals.

London radicals (Levellers) and rank and file soldiers drew up an 'Agreement of the People'-a democratic constitution.

Behind this position lay of course, the desire of the great newly-awakened masses to guarantee their political influence and rights for the future.

Such a move was too much for Cromwell who remained-however determined and forceful-a bourgeois revolutionary concerned with establisning and defending a bourgeois social system.

discussion Moves were therefore made to restore 'normal' military discipline, that is, to debase start outy curb political discussion.

Even at this stage Cromwell may have agreed on a monarchy.

Charles I, however, would not be dictated to.

He escaped, regrouped some forces and renewed his military campaign for a brief period until defeated at Preston and subsequently recaptured.

Convinced, like his father, of his 'divine right' to rule, Charles did not dive un pacilv Even at this point Presbyterian MPs hoped for a settlement. Ine monarchy would, - 1 n1_ _ 1.- 1 * it is true, have provided legitimacy' and 'continuity?.

Rallying point On the other hand Cromwell now saw the King mainly as a dangerous rallying point for reaction.

The army reoccupied London and a Colonel Pride (without Cromwell's knowledge but with subsequent approval), politely but firmly expelled one hundred MPs from the Commons.

With the conservatives out of the way, Cromwell set up an illegal High Court, to which Charles refused to plead-his last act of principle before his head fell - in January 1649.

Cromwell, Levellers and Sects.

The killing of the King inevitably opened the way for a sharp conflict over what form of government would take the place on monarchy.

The remaining 'Rump' of the Long Parliament was still seen as the legitimate organ of power, and this body now came under pressure from both the Independents of Cromwell and the so-called Leveller forces in the army and the capital city.

The latter still hoped to see the adoption of their democratic Agreement of the People.

Imprisoned Cromwell and the Rump had no intention of taking such a step and soon the Leveller leaders found themselves imprisoned; or Trotsky put it "Cromwell ruthlessly put down the lunaticks"

Cromwell did not the Rump as the best form of government-his later actions proved this.

But consolidation of the bourgeois revolution meant a struggle against the Levellers who would have burst its banks with their actions and demands.

When the Bolshevik revolution in Russia faced civil war and famine, harsh measures had to be taken against all those who threatened the revolutionary discipline and single-mindedness necessary for a victory.

Similarly, the English bourgeois revolution, facing the imminent threat of rebellion in Ireland; posed with the threat of an alliance between the Scots and Charles Il eager to avenge his father's decapitation, and requiring the all-out aid and support of merchant and gentry, could stand no nonsense from such as the Levellers.

Unity of forces in the revolution was sufficiently preserved to defeat the new Royalist bid for power at Dunbar in September 1650, and finally one year later at the battle of Worcester.

The Leveller movement never rose to prominence again in the next period-yet the tradition they left and their complex and contradictory nature makes a worthy object of study for Marxists.

Dix HrysIs In so far as it had a coherent outlook and programme the Leveller movement reflected the class interests of the petty bourgeois layers radicalised and thrown forward by the revolution.

Feared by men of property it was accused of wanting to 'level' all inequalities and social ranks and distinctions. Trotsky himself refers to the Levellers as 'ennalitarians' and 'communists'.

In fact, though matters must nave looked like this to the well-to-do, this is not an accurate characterisation of the Levellers.

'Free men' From their pamphlets, from the Agreement of the People and from the famous records of army political debates held at Putney it is clear that the Levellers sought not 'communism' but the defence of all 'free men'a category which specifically excluded the propertyless wage earning and 'servant' Classes.

Their main base of support came from among small masters and apprentice craftsmen. Through extension of the franchise to such layers Pag (probably the entire group which were considered free' amounted to about one-third of the population) they hoped to carry out a radical Abolish monarchy Leveller demands raised at one time or another included the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, the election of sheriffs and magistrates, the separation of church and state.

It is not surprising that a hostile writer accused the Levellers of turning the "poor against the rich. Yet the social base of the Levellers did not have this aim. Far from being for the overthrow of private property it stood for the defence of the property of the little men'.

The democratic revolutionary demands just mentioned went alongside the fight against land enclosures, against the power of trading companies-demands which reflected the fears of the small farmers and craftsmen at their big competitors, yet would have made the development of capitalism impossible.

Cavalry

Naturally, the Levellers won support from the cavalry (yeomen who provided their own horses). They were bitterly opposed by the army generals who represented the progressive bourgeoisie.

Ireton, who took up the cudgels against the Levellers, on behalf of the Independents said:

"I would have an eye to property"

He feared the implications of radical Leveller doctrine. He represented the future, while the Levellers were only the heroic death-agony of a doomed class.

Yet their hopeless inability to take power and create a new social system in no way diminishes the importance of the insights of Leveller leaders, or the legacy they left for democratic political theory.

The same qualification applies to one degree or other to the plethora of movements and sects thrown up by the English bourgeois revolution.

The final part of is series will ap ar next week's edi Socialist Press.

Scan page 8

e Palestinia o lessons arawn "O Zaatar, Arab leaders who betrayed you now praise your fight"

These words, in a song sung by an old Palestinian man are the only attempt in this film to sum up the political lessons of the slaughter of thousands of Palestinians by Lebanese fascists in the camp of Tel-alZaatar.

Both the film's directorRoy Battersby-and its chief "star" Vanessa Redgrave-are Central Committee members of the "Trotskyist" Workers Revolutionary Party.

WRP policy is to stand uncritically in defence of Arafat and the bourgeois leaders of the PLO. They therefore make no call-in the film or in their daily paper Newsline for the building of a Palestinian Trotskyist party.

Genuine Nobody could doubt the genuine emotion or the revolutionary conviction of many of the Palestinians interviewed in the film.

They have lived day by day through the most horrific and testing struggles against JOHN Redgr: Palesti Now LISTER reviews ve Productions lian". , directed by 1 showing at WRI meetings.

Irafat the Vanessa film "The py B: ittersby.

rec: uitment fascists-most vicious section of the Arab bourgeoisie-have for the Palestinians and their struggle.

Fascists

Astonishing interviews with Lebanese fascist leaders bring out the same point. But the film soft-pedalled the massive military support given to these fascists by the Syrian bourgeoisie.

Unless the fascist forces are seen in the context of the hostility of the whole Arab bourgeoisie to the Palestinian struggle, these points fail to connect into any pattern.

Nothing however could illustrate the WRP's bellycrawling to Arafat better than the protracted "interview" with Redgrave which ends the film. idea, and the gun"

Even this implicit attack on Leninism and explicit distortion of the class struggle (in which there is also another side-the bourgeoisie, with its ideas, its forces and its guns) did not rouse Central Committee member Vanessa to ask so much as a question.

Arafat's was therefore the final word in a film which at no point attempted à Trotskyist assessment of the Palestinian struggle.

Barred at door

It is no coincidence therefore that Trotskyists of the Workers Socialist League have been barred by WRP leaders at the door of each showing of the film in a vain bid to prevent us seeing and challenging its political

----- pull-quotes -----

OUT MON MARXIST Student bulletin

COORDINATING D STEE N.W EIGHT THE CUTS

posts, to the 'Self Denying Ordinance of 1645, which