•We do not intend to make our publication a mere store-house of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. although we shall discuss all questions from our own point of view, we shall give space in our columns to polemics between comrades. Indeed, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of polemics between avowedly differing views' (Lenin, Statement of the Editorial Board of Iskra).
To judge from letters we have received, the publication in Red Weekly of articles with different emphases, and sometimes even different conclusions, on Angola and other questions appears to have given rise to some surprise and controversy on the left. This seems to arise from a confusion between the editorial policies developed under Stalin, and the genuine tradition of Marxism. None of the classic papers and journals of revolutionary Marxism, edited by Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci etc., ever imposed a unanimity of views on articles or their press.
Two simple rules are all that is necessary. Firstly, views which either directly support the capitalist class (reformism, racism, chauvinism, Zionism etc.) or have been shown by great historic events to be completely outside the historic political camp of the working class (revolution by stages, socialism in one country, advocating violence in the workers movement, etc.) are excluded from a revolutionary press by its very nature. the paper must be edited in such a way both that its own line is clear - through leading articles, editorials, ete - and that it ensures that the weight of material within the paper reflects that line.
But the left.
Secondly, Outside of these guidelines, none of the classic papers of Marxism - Iskra, Pravda, Ordine Nuovo, Inprecorr, Bulletin Oppozitsii - ever sought to impose uniformity on their articles and contributors. On the contrary, most of them were notable for their controversies and range of views. Red Weekly cannot aspire to their emin ence, but within our politically and materially limited resources we consciously seek to recreate this type of tradition against the distortions later imposed on it and unfortunately accepted as good coin by large parts of We have also received letters informing us that we show a lack of understanding of democratic centralism by printing direct polemics in our columns. This shows surprising ignorance of the history of the workers movement. The pages of the Bolshevik press, in particular, were notable for the raging debates which were carried out quite publicly in them. Indeed, every single one of Lenin's works - the polemical tone of some of which went by his own admission even beyond sensible bounds - was published quite openly.
So much for the "tradition' that all debate is internal! All that is necessary in order to have a public polemic, even between comrades of the same organisation, is that it is conducted under the control of an appropriate leading body, making sure that there is never any confusion between what is the line defended by a publication or organisation and the views of particular individuals. This again is a small part of the Marxist tradition which we are trying to rebuild through Red Weekly. THE EDITORS
The current situation in Angola has been presented to public opinion as the direct consequence of a confrontation between the United Red Weekly 5 February 1976 White mercenary supervising tattered remains of reactionary FLA forces Angola 9 Thus, groups emerged like the Amilcar Cabral Committees (CAC), which were linked to the Portuguese UDP (Popular Democratic Union, Maoist), as well as some forces upholding