ROLE OF THE CAPITALIST PRESS The last issue of the Red Mole analysed Angela Davis' book If they come in the Morning. However, as was pointed out in that article, it is extremely• dangerous to think that it is only in the USA and not in Britain that blacks are subjected to police and orison brutality and court frame-ups. This of course is precisely the impression that the bourgeoise press would like to give. Hence on the one hand their publicity for Angela Davis and the oppression in the USA. Hence on the other hand their almost total lack of publicity of oppression here. Thus at a time when nine black militants are on trial here, the bourgeois press is only too willing to virtually ignore the proceedings whilst at the same time giving full (if distorted) details of massacres at Attica, murder of Jonathan Jackson, attempted murder of Rap Brown, etc. As long as it is happening 3000 miles away, anything will be reported in order to direct attention away from the daily physical repression of Blacks in Britain.
ROLE OF THE CAPITALIST STATE The truth is that blacks here are increasingly as subject to the State as a 'body of armed men' as are their brothers and sisters in the U.S.A. Blacks in Moss Side, Handsworth, Notting Hill, Brixton, don't just have rotten housing, schools, jobs (if any).
They are not just the victims of openly racist legislation as in the Immigration Act. They are also subjected to daily harrassment through police brutality, court frame-ups and prison violence—a hierarchical trinity of physical violence. Already in the trial of the Mangrove Nine the comrades have spoken of blacks being beaten up at Notting Hill police station and the planting of drugs on blacks by police but this is only the tip of an iceberg. Moreover, this violence is not restricted to black militants-it is a daily reality in the life of every black. Indeed in a way blacks here are more vulnerable than in the USA black political groups have more greater strength than here and are thus better placed (relatively) to defend the ghetto communities.
THE MANGROVE NINE' At the moment the violence of the State is being particularly directed at one group of blacks the Mangrove Nine who are now on trial at the Old Bailey on a charge of riot. This frame-up arose out of a demonstration last year in Notting Hill organised by the Black Panthers against police harrassment of black people in general and in particular of black people in Notting Hill/Ladbroke Grove especially against those who meet in the Mangrove Restaurant (which is being continually)
busted by the police on various pretexts).
Of course the whole affair is a frame-up from beginning to end.
Indeed what bourgeois "justice' really means can be seen in the actual conduct of the trial itself. Various examples can be given.
1. The charge of riot had already been thrown out by a magistrate on the grounds of obvious lack of evidence. He thus didn't commit the comrades to the Old Bailey on this charge (although he was prepared to have them up for assault).
However, the Mangrove Nine are black and they are militant revolutionaries-and the State wants to make an example of them. The Director of Public Prosecutions consequently employed the little-used technical device of getting another Judge to commit a further comrade (who was arrested for this purpose, months after the demo) for trial for riot on a 'voluntary indictment' which does not require him to hear evidence. Moreover, this comrade was voluntary indicted with the others so that this Judge committed them all.to be tried for riot. This is the real function of so-called legal technicalities-which should not be seen merely as boring garbage (this being only half the story). 3. Actually wherever it seems that a legal 'technicality' might be of help to the oppressed class the courts will invariably ignore it. This again is shown in respect to the Mangrove Nine. Here the comrades tried to argue for an all black jury. In fact they were able to quote legal precedents, going back over 1000 years, that an accused had the 'right to be tried by a jury of his peers. However, after arguing this for 1½days they were confronted by a judge who turned the whole argument down without giving any reasons-and who refused to give any reasons. So much for the much vaunted 'value' of legal precedent-which in class terms is a pretty one-sided value. 4. After being refused an all-black jury the defendants tried to ensure that all the blacks who were eligible to be on the jury for the case were in fact put on the jury. However even here they were met with resistance by the Prosecutor who rejected one black juryman as soon as he tried to read the oath.
comrades are in many cases man for man the police against whose constant harrassment the demonstration was called. In particular, one of the star witnesses called by the prosecution is P.C. Pulley-the same P.C. Pulley whose past conduct the comrades were demonstrating.against. Pulley is able to give evidence in this case by virtue of the fact that he followed the demo in a plain car. 6. The reaction of the comrades to all this is shown by the attitude of one of them in interrupting the judge and telling him he was in effect taking over the case of the prosecution (this was after the judge had told the one black defence lawyer that he was incompetent).
BOURGEOIS JUSTICE' Recently the Magistrates' Association has described British justice as 'the best in the world at all levels. It is incorrupt. It is impartial. It is humane'! However, justice can never be neutral. The only sort of justice which can exist in a bourgeois state is bourgeois justice. This is why we have bourgeois laws of theft to protect private bourgeois property. This is why we have bourgeois laws of riotous assembly to stifle any meaning. ful fight back against the system. In other words free speech is o.k. but don't actually try and do anything about it. The response of the black comardes in the public gallery of the Old Bailey was quite correct when he told the Prosecutor, who was talking about the 'Queen's Peace' that what he really meant was "bourgeois violence.
It is precisely because of the racist nature of law that revolutionaries must support the demand of the Mangrove Nine in calling for a black jury as a way of exposing this racism. However at the same time racism does not just exist in a vacuum-it itself is part of a capitalist class system. In other words even if the Mangrove Nine had got a black jury they would still be at the mercy of a system which put them on trial in the first place. (For instance, the state could ensure that an all black jury is an all Uncle Tom jury.) As was argued in the last Red Mole in respect to Angela Davis, we don't merely want to reform bourgeois "justice' we want to end it. Thus in the case of the Mangrove Nine we don't merely support the demand for a black jury. Instead we demand immediate release of the comrades. MANGROVE TRIAL! NOT THE FIRST Although the Mangrove case is on at the moment it would again be wrong to be taken in by the silence of the capitalist press and to imagine that this is the first obviously political trial of black militants here. To put this into its correct perspective a random selection of examples can be given and there are many others. 1. In 1967 Michael X was found guilty under the Race Relations Act of causing a breach of the peace and inciting racial hatred. 2. In December 1968 Obi Egbuna and Peter Martin were found guilty of issuing leaflets at a Hyde Park anti-racist rally threatening to kill police in retaliation for harrassment. 3. December 1969. Peter Martin found guilty under the Race Relations Act for distributing leaflets whereby 'breach of the peace might have been occasioned' describing brutality by the police against blacks in Brixton. 4. April 1970. 20 black comrades were arrested on a joint Black Panther-Vietnam Solidarity Campaign demonstration. 5. November 1970. Magistrates Court found two other comrades involved in Notting Hill-Mangrove Demonstration guilty of assaulting the police. The fact that another nine were eventually committed to the Old Bailey on riot charges seems because the D.P.P. is out to get the leadership of the black movement. 6. January 197l. 3 black militants found guilty of riot when they tried to prevent police breaking into a Black Panther dance in the Oval House in Kensington (on the pretext they were looking for a stolen watch!)
MANGROVE TRIAL-NOT THE LAST the black youth from the Metro Club will be in a similar dock on similar charges. Again the Immigration Act will itself provide greater scope by inventing greater crimes for such trials. Indeed every time a black ever appears in court it is a politica trial-for he is there basically because he is black. It can be seen that it is no exaggeration to say that the State as 'a body of armed men' does have a reality to blacks in British ghettoes. Racism attacks them physically as well as materially. This is quite unlike anything which is happening to even the most militant white workers (except that handful who have consciously sided with the black cause). As Angela Davis says, "The vicious circle linking poverty, police, courts and prison is an integral element of ghetto existence. Unlike the mass of whites, the patch which leads to jails and prisons is deeply rooted in the imposed patterns of Black existence.....
For the Black individual, contact with the law enforcementjudicial-penal network is inevitable because he is black'. The Mangrove trial shows also that the same description Angela gives of Watts and Harlem can be given of black ghettoes in Britain. 'Black ghettoes are occupied, patrolled and often attacked by massive deployments of police. The police, domestic caretakers of violence are the oppressors emissaries charged with the task of containing us within our oppression.
As many of our readers may know the leadership of the International Socialism group has taken the decision to expel from the organisation a group which calls itself the "Trotskyist Tendency" and is generally known inside and outside I.S: as "Workers' Fight". Taken on its own merits this expulsion is completely unjustifiable. The statement issued by the national secretary of I.S. does not list one single breach of democratic centralism or lack of discipline by members of the Workers' Fight and makes it absolutely clear that they are being expelled because of the particular political views which they hold. In view of these rather strange proceedings from a group which is supposed to be 'non sectarian' and 'democratic' it is worth trying to explain the logic of the events behind the threatened expulsion. THE UNITY TACTIC Workers' Fight originally joined I.S. as a result of an appeal made by the I.S. leadership for unity of revolutionary organisations. These proposals were made in April 1968 and were a result of an analysis made by the I.S. leadership that fascism was imminent. I.S.'s paper,then called "Labour Worlier" carried in issue no. 83 a printed leaflet entitled 'THE URGENT CHALLENGE OF FASCISM'. This proposed the formation of a common revolutionary organisation on the basis of 4 points which would constitute a minimum programme. These proposals were in fact so liberal that at a later date the I.S. found itself in the embarassing position that a Labour Party M.P., Stan Newens, stated that he agreed with the four proposals.(I.S. Executive Committee minutes for before the 1970 General Election). It was on the basis of these proposals that Workers' Fight joined I.S. Although in many respects the Workers' Fight had incorrect positions on various subjects, nevertheless the fact that it was in essence a Trotskyist organisation(i.e. accepted the theory of permanent revolution, accepted the definition of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state, accepted the need for a Leninist party) enabled it to make a relatively quick progress inside those I.S. branches, mainly Manchester and Teesside, in which it had members. As soon as this occurred the I.S. leadership replied with a regime of bureaucratic manouvering. This reached its height when the I.S. leadership split the Manchester branch in order to prevent Workers' Fight making any more headway. This was presented to the membership of I.S. in a totally dishonest fashion. The Manchester branch clearly voted against the split, but the resolution passed at the I.S. National Committee declared that it was ratifying the decision of the branch by enforcing the split and it was in this way that the decision was presented to the membership. It was not until the I.S. Autumn Conference of 1969 that the real story became apparent when Workers Fight circulated copies of the branch minutes. From then on the campaign against Workers Fight was stepped up to its present level whereby they are to be expelled for their particular political views which in no way run counter to the original four points on which they joined I.S.
This last episode is a general part of a deterioration of democracy within I.S. For example the last I.S. national conference passed a resolution clearly stating that I.S. would not oppose British entry into the Common Market. This decision was quite blatantly then reversed by the I.S. National Committee. Workers Fight and others organised opposition to his arbitrary act and it is probably for this reason that the decision to expel Workers Fight is now being taken by the I.S. leadership. This is however only the tip of the iceberg. The real reason why the I.S. has decided to expel Workers Fight is due to fear of a reaction on the part of the I.S. membership against the increasing right wing evolution of the organisation. Nowhere is this shown more clearly than on the question of Ireland.
THE IRISH STRUGGLE AND I.S.
The first clear indication of the rightward evolution of I.S. came in August 1969 when British troops were were sent into Northern Ireland. For several months I.S. had been campaigning or the basis of the withdrawal of troops. Now that they were actually being used I.S. withdrew the call. This was done quite consciously and after a discussion at the Executive Committee. A vote was taken on the precise issue of whether to call for the withdrawal of British troops. The motion that this slogan be included in the list of demands to appear in "Socialist Worker" was rejected. At the I.S. conference of Autumn 1969 a resolution was moved that I.S. should call for the withdrawal of British troops. After the intervention of the I.S. leadership this call was rejected. From then on the rightward evolution of I.S. proceeded at a rapid pace reaching a new peak in their withdrawal at this year's DATA Conference of a resolution calling for a General Strike. The I.S. turned out in this case to be to the right of even the majority of delegates who passed the resolution which I.S. had attempted to withdraw. Other milestones along the path were, for example, the refusal of the I.S. leadership to take disciplinary action against an I.S. lecturer at Barking and nas cose unks wu une ramona kroner struggle in Ireland. They took part in the founding of the Irish Solidarity Campaign but rapidly withdrew when they saw they were not going to make quick recruits. Throughout the carly period of repression in 1971, I.S. allocated no real forces to work on Ireland. It was only with the introduction of internment that I.S. thought they could jump on a bandwagon by forming a Labour Committee against Internment. This was established on a reformist basis with slogans which included a demand for a 'fair trial'as an alternative to internment. I.S. later tried to disown this latter slogan, but this was hardly impressive as they had written it in this first place. After weeks of pushing the Labour Committee and never even mentioning the Anti-Internment League in their press, the I.S. abandoned this LCAI. This was quite simply because I.S. saw that the anti-internment league was making real gains and I.S. hoped it could jump on another bandwagon in order to recruit. Now in the 6th November issue of "Socialist Worker" we are told that the success of the October 31st demonstration was due to "many weeks of hard work by the AntiInternment League and its supporters". What is clear is that as far as I.S. is concerned all they did was to pull out their members for the demonstration but for most of those "many weeks of work" I.S. was not supporting the Anti-Internment League with publicity but was trying to build the rival Labour Committee. This does not mean that even now I.S. have changed their political line. They still have not called for a campaign in solidarity with the IRA but "Socialist Worker" confines itself (6/11/71) to calling for an end to internment and the withdrawal of troops. As I.S. has never been noted for having a consistent national line it is not surprising to find that individual I.S. branches, for example York, are calling for a solidarity campaign with the IRA, while the national I.S. line is not doing this. Naturally, however, the I.S. line on Ireland may change next week (or in fact virtually at any time).
SELF REFORM?
The accelerated drift to the right of I.S. nationally leads to internal struggle inside I.S. A considerable section of IS militants opposed the line on the troops large section will oppose the expul sion of Workers' Fight. The question then arises of whether IS is reformable and the shift to the right can be halted. This has to be dealt with at several levels. The first question is whether it is possible to challenge the IS leadership. The answer lies in an analysis of the social forces acting within IS.
In the period 1966-68 IS grew very rapidly around the VSC and the general student upsurge. It grew on the basis of intervention in a political issue-the Vietnam War. At that time the IMG was too small to benefit from the Solidarity Campaign it had been active in initiating. That layer of militants which, for example, in France had gone into the JCR, in Britain went into IS. It formed a solid political cadre and it is largely on this layer that opposition to the opportunist policies of IS leadership is based. The internal situation was however transformed by the mass IS recruitment campaigns. In terms of the political level of the political level of the organisation, a disastrous drop occurred. Even by the admission of the IS leadership, reformists, opportunists, people who were totally non active etc. joined the organisation. This acted as a 'Lenin levy' and created a new social base for the IS leadership. Cliff, Hallas etc. could now appeal over the heads of any political opposition to a non political rank and file. It is possible to create an internal regime based on demagogy and hysteria. Insinuation of 'wreckers' and 'whisperers' became frequent. Furthermore the new nonpolitical IS could only be kept together by an increase in sectarianism and bureaucracy. The combination of these two adds up to the expulsion of Workers' Fight. It is in fact now impossible for any political opposition to challenge the leadership of IS because that leadership can always simply ignore the political aspects of the opposition and concentrate on demagogy. Hallas' arguments against a special IS Conference on the Common Market 'a diversion' from building the organisation etc. is a typical product. Rosewell's report on the intervention in UCS-almost entirely in terms of the number of papers sold etc.—is another example of the general direction things will take inside IS.
Given the relationship of forces created by the recruitment campaigns, effective opposition to the rightward direction of the organisation is impossible. Those who believe they can change the direction of IS's evolution are in fact deluding themselves and not basing themselves on an analysis of the real situation the end of I.S's unity tactic perspective on which they entered IS was incorrect. The way in which you build a Party in the present period is not by passive propagandistic politics. It is by open activity and intervention. It is true that the political questions of the nature of the Soviet Union, the role of the colonial revolution etc. all underlie everyday political intervention, but the way they show themselves in the present period is in the concrete question of how to build the revolu. tionary party. The leadership of Workers Fight chose the path of propagandism. The leadership of IS chose a quantitative concept of the building of the party and in consequence led their entire organisation to degenerate. In a real sense the present solution of IS hopefully marks the end of a historical period in revolutionary politics. It may mark the end of the specifically British revolutionary tradition of empiricism, placing of size above politics, purely administrative concepts of organisation, etc. The task now is to avoid repeating the same errors and build an organisation based on theory and internationalism.
-David Windsor For an analysis of IS's basic political position read:
Mandel, "The Mystifications of State Capitalism"
10p.
Grogan, "New Developments?) in State Capitalism" in 'International' Vol. 1, no. l. available from Red Bo, London, entonville London, N. 1.
I was slightly disturbed by an article which appeared in your last issue entitled "Fascists attack ISC march". This referred to a demonstration in Glasgow which was attacked by Orangemen. Does this mean that the Red Mole equates Orangeism with fascism? If so, this seems rather odd in a newspaper which has attacked the use of the term fascism to refer to eveyone from Harold Wilson to Colin Jordan and the National Front.
Certainly Orangeism is an extremely reactionary ideology, but fascism is usually defined as an armed movement aimed at destroying the organisations of the working class. Doesn't orangeism on the contrary rely on the misguided support of sections of the protestant working class and in that sense it can hardly be called fascism?
Martin Huggitt Editorial Reply An unfortunate ambiguity crept into the headline cde. Huggitt referred to. The movement led by Jack Glass is in marxist terms a proper fascist movement this that the word fascist referred to in the headline. However, taken in the context of the article we agree that it might have been taken as referring to Orangeism in general. We agree completely that it would be incorrect to describe Orangeism as Fascism. Its particularly reactionary ideas easily give rise to fascist movements and it contains within itself elements, who are genuine fascists. However, taken as a whole the nature of Orangeism is different. Orangeism bases itself on a particular privileged position held by the Protestant working class. Certainly in any real terms the Protestant workers are monstrously oppressed and exploited by the Orange state and Orange capitalism. Nevertheless Orangeism uses one section of the working class against another and does not attempt to smas the working class as fascist movements do. In that sense Orangeism, as cde. Huggitt points out, cannot be equated with fascism. As we regard this question of the nature of fascism as an extremely important one (the theory of 'creeping fascism' for example is one which leads to a disastrous political practice) we are very glad that cde. Huggits letter has given the
....ve want to be holding aliving women in our arms." own ranks. "1789" which some people might have been lucky it innocuous.
terms and qualifies it as being a bourgeois revolution with repression of the people. Repression directed mostly at those who realise that the revolution must be permanent orforget about it. (i.e. must lead right up to the liberation of the masses.)
Paradoxically enough, though, the revolutionary aspect of the play does not lie mostly in its marxist approach. What the audience is really compelled to reflect upon is not so much whether, for example, Marat was "realistic" or not, as, what the meaning of art is (not merely theatrical art but ART). Still, the sheer posing of the question would not be enough to make "1789" a revolutionary play. What does, is its partial answer to the question.
What one is made aware of most strikingly during the play is the actual form of theatre one is watching. One is not going to be lulled or deceived into believing that we are actually back in 1789; that we are actually facing Marie-Antoinette and Louis XIV, or even that we are going to feel their panic. Indeed, throughout the play no process of identification is allowed to take place (each of the actors acts many parts or is seen gesticulating behind the puppet he is moving). This might remind the readers of the famous "Brechtian technique" of freeing the audience of all emotions so the mind can remain in a perpetually "critical state". However, it would be wrong to suggest that the type of acting of the Theatre du Soleil is a Brechtian one.
The point is that one process of identification at least does attempt to take place, and this is that of the audience with the masses. Now, we know that in an interview she gave to Emile Copferman, Anne Mnouchkine denies that even an attempt had been made for the public to "participate. But in art just as in any other field, one should not judge on what is said but on what is actually done. What actually happens is a paradoxical situation of obvious attempts at making the audience participate while the latter is unable to do so. And in turn, we could be paradoxical and say that this is precisely when the "failure" of the play is actually an illumination.
We talked of obvious attempts. Well, the clearest, and also the pre-condition for participation is the very fat that the audience has to stand up, and therefore is not allowed to drift off to sleep (this happens in most bourgenistheatres where the visual/verbal "niceness" wafts down onto the replenished ladies and gentlemen cosily ensconced in their chairs). Another stimulus throughout the play is the way actors mingle with the audience march and parade through it and generally treat it like a Parisian crowd. Lastly how should we interpret the scene of the narration of the seizure of the Bastille if not as a pure attempt at involving the audience?
We hope to have shown so far that even if it is not the actors' intention to make the audience participate it is in the logic of the form of the acting they have chosen.
Why now do we talk of failure and yet of illumination?
Well, failure, very simply because the public just does not really respond or does so only very timidly. We heard some people say that if unfortunately the only sign of participation had been some heckling when Bailly declared "Law EDITORIAL BOARD: Tariq Ali, Dave Bailey, Robin Blackburn, J. R. Clynes, Peter Gowan, Teresa Hayter, Alan Jones, Pat Jordan, Branka Magas, Martin Meteyard, Neil Middleton, Bob Purdie, Daniel Rose. DESIGN: Dave Edmunds DISTRIBUTION: Phil Sanders Published by Relgocrest for The Red Mole, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.I. 01-837 6954, 01-278 2616. rinted by F.I. Litho Ltd. (T.U.) 82 Pentonville Road, London N.l. 01-837 9987 PLEASE SEND ME THE RED MOLE FOR THE NEXT 6/12 MONTHS. I ENCLOSE CHEQUE/P.O./ CASH FOR £1/£2.
NAME ..
ADDRESS THE RED MOLE, 182 PENTONVILLE ROAD, LONDON N.1. 01-837 6954, 01-278 2616. and Order" it was mainly due to a British audience, who surely in a Latin country the public would have actually taken the Bastille again! Lovely illusion, but illusion nevertheless. We think differently-not just because we saw a similar type as over here. Above all we know that even if it tried, the majority of the audience is not in a position to respond. We know that in a society where art is separate from life, where the division of labour imposes a division of skills, and specialists and be called entertainment; in this society, we It is the pointing out of that Utopia which is the major contribution of the play. In other words what this play does is to make people rather painfully aware-embarrassed eventhat they cannot throw off their alienation.....by what we called its "failure" (to involve the audience) the play is the demonstration of the fact that art must cease being separated from life; that the whole point of art is not to create objects but one's own life (the main thrust of the USSR vanguard in 1917 was Mayakovsky's "we are fed up with bookish passions/we want to be holding a living woman in our arms." or the more famous... "Streets are our brushes/squares are our palettes."
It does not mean of course that art can arbitrarily be declared dead overnight or that we should burn down museums or stop acting. It is obvious that until the socioeconomic conditions are that of communism, art is indispensable, but art must develop towards its abolition and be the means of educating the masses who should be able to "undertake" their sensitivity.
-Juliet Wynter Good political theatre is few and far between. They tend to be either documentaries or cast in the Stalinist "socialistrealism" mould, in which the ordinary worker and peasant is sculpted in twice life-size and without a blemish. From the Royal Shakespeare Company one expects good theatre and "Occupations' is both well-produced and well-acted.
The central theme of this play by Trevor Griffiths is the occupation of the factories by the workers of Turin, under the leadership of Antonio Gramsci in 1921. The author shows some perception of the political realities of the time. The Italian Socialist Party (PSI) under the leadership of Turrati, was one Please send me Socialist Woman for the next year. I enclose 48p of its leadership remained reformist and it wasn't long before these elements returned to their spiritual home in the 2nd International. Only Gramsci and his closest associates seemed Christopher Davies, Report London. accomplished through the Soviets alone.
All this comes out in Griffiths' play. But he seems to have taken dramatic licence to telescope the Third International of Lenin with that of Stalin. He confuses the revolution tri umphant with the revolution betrayed.
The drama is acted out in a room in a Turin hotel. Kabak played by Patrick Stewart, the emissary from the Comintern, for some inexplicable reason, made up to look extraordinarily like Lenin. His mistress is a Countess of the old regime who, throughout the play, is dying of cancer of the womb, probably symbolical of the passing of the old order. Kabak is depicted as a cynic, more typical of the Stalinist bureaucrats than the devoted revolutionaries who surrounded Lenin and Trotsky. He brings, not only advice from the Comintern for the revolutionary workers of Turin, but lots of "Moscow Gold", which he distributes very freely.
No sooner are the workers defeated than the representative of the Third International becomes transformed into the representative of the Soviet Government. With a victorious socialist revolution in Italy now off the agenda he sends for a director of Fiats-those same Fiats whose factories were still occupied the day before by the workers-and offers him very favourable terms for setting up a plant in the Soviet Unio "You will find" says this cynic, "that our working class will not give you the same headaches as the workers of Turin." To symbolise the defeat of the revolution and the triumph of counter-revolution, the voice of Hitler is heard off-stage. This again shows the authors prediliction for telescoping two historical periods. It would surely have been more appropriate to end the play with the voice of Mussolini or to the strains of "Giovinezza".
Gramsci comes well out of the play and Ben Kingsley's make-up as the misshapen dwarf is remarkable. There are moments, especially when Gramsci is addressing the workers, that one really caputres the spirit of the times. The audience. in fact, becomes part of the occupying factory workers. For this reason alone it is worth seeing if you can afford the fl admission charge.
-Charles van Gelderen NEW ISSUE OF SOCIALIST WOMAN NOW OUT.
Includes articles on: Strike at Brannons, Women in Ireland, Women in Eastern Europe, US Women Workers.
which includes postage & packing (for overseas rates see below).
Name Adores Send to: SOCIALIST WOMAN SUBS.,
----- pull-quotes -----
5. One of the most oppressive features of the trial is that these police who are being produced to give evidence against the
Not only is Mangrove not the first political trial of Blacks-it is also obviously not going to be the last. Thus in a few months
orangeism and fascism -letter
The bourgeoisie tries so hard to have 'the others' believe that art is apolitical that they sometimes end up deceiving their
enough to see at the Round House is a good illustration of this fact, Yes, the play was subsidised by the French Government, but for once-oh surprise-that did not make
"1789" is a political play. Without being a detailed or even an accurate account of what happened at the time of the French revolution, it relates the first year of this revolution in class
everything that that implies:up till the seizure of power by the bourgeoisie, deceivement of the masses; then, ferocious
of acting in France and elsewhere under "exhuberant climates" where the response of the audience was pretty much the same
know that to ask the audience to shake off even for one evening all this inhibition and conditioning is sheer Utopia.
occupations-Royal Shakespeare Company at the place