WRITE 70 US.
Think of this page as a noticeboard for your comments, criticisms, or even congretulations. Be briet, to leave space for others - maximum 400 words. Write to: Letters, Socialist Challenge London N 2XP- (tel 01-369 678019 328 Upper St decline CAN you remember the open letter to the SWP SHIHLOd Socialist Challenge four months ago? I only draw a brief reference to it because for of us the wheel has turned full circle it nas taken tne collapse of the Tameside DECRCA suicidally pessimistic SWP conand the disenTOTONGO chantment a few Wrong on Falklands THE FRONT page of Socialist Challenge 275 is scathing denunciation disgusting Falkland's visit. tool But in the article a number of arguments are used that seem to me to have dangerous implications.
tion in the world' and what does the fact that not one single Latin American country will grant landing rights to British civilian aircraft prove?
Since when have we been about the votes in that thieves kitchen, the UN, or the views of a bunch of bourgeois naThatcher's And quite right Why all the emphasis on Thatcher's 'isolaconcerned to simply assert Certainly the islands are not 'British' and June islanders After all, if the Falklands/Malvinas really then we favour of an Argentinian reI DON'T aSCe that revolutionary socialists should oppose proportional representation, as suggested Pau (SC 276). SC LaWSOn coming out against PR that SICys danger of adapting to the illusions of the reformist left in the Labour Party that capturing the apparatus and using the current unjust electoral system, to get a Labour government in, the key to socialist advance.
In reality only socialist programme based on stimulating mass self-activity break the hold of the Labour bureaucracy and advance towards socialism. This because Ine bureaucracy is unaccountable not that it is staffed by the wrong people.
In the meantime it would be disastrous the labour left presented itself to the public as a bunch of conspirators addicted to the bureaucratic Antique arrangement!
PETER HAIN (SC 277) says socialists should op post proportional representation 'on princinle because bie consti between MPs their constituents. an incredibly CacuOld argument!
The argument about the sacrosanct (and generally, let it be said, relationship between the MP and consutuens is precisciy wid right wing Labour MPs tight reselection.
MPs should represent parties and programmes The regional list system us ed in Italy makes vote for each party count.
PR would demand more political activity and threaten all the rotten boroughs of contemporary politics , including some "Trotskyists' ones such as Militiant.
As far as the coalition oeStOr concerned isn't the Labour Party already a tacit coalition, in which the left GUISLOEL MARKES concessions in order to stave off the nont s threats to split and • lose ine election? What substantial difference would PR make to that?
en to Wimset ule listen .TO himself. are, he says, 'in favour of democratic reforms PR. The Labour lea der- general' but not ship lism in favour of SUlcis general but not when it might upset the daily routines. Revolutionary socialists are in favour of acting on principles as they should be in this case Millions of votes in Britain are literally wasted through the first past the post SYSLCHE which cidentally robbed Labour of victory in 1951 when it received its largest popular vote ever Socialists shouldn't Oiose demoo aue retort because it might lead to a coaluor manipulative argument. really If socialismn is about winning the majority, then that wil be reflecte much better through a PR system than our present undemocratic and antique arrangement.
Liverpool
----- pull-quotes -----
MARK JACKSON, Surrey