Published: The Commentator, No. 11, May-July 1976.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Several movement bookstores have recently discontinued handling The Guardian newspaper. The bookstores have apparently done so because of The Guardian’s disagreement with China on some questions. It is understandable that these bookstores exclude anti-China material. Such material is readily available for all who want it at the regular Bourgeois bookstores. But can one – or a group – or a paper be considered anti-China because of disagreement with the Chinese on Angola, or the exact nature of the Soviet Union for example? We don’t think so. The Chinese don’t seem to think so either. A majority in our group happens to agree with China on these questions, but we do not regard those who disagree with China – either in our group or out – as enemies. In our opinion the bookstores concerned are in fact acting in a way counter to Mao’s teachings.
This does not mean The Guardian is a virgin princess in this whole matter. The question is not one of suppression in general, for we are sure The Guardian can understand the exclusion of openly revisionist, trotskyite, or anti-China material from these pro-China bookstores. And then too, we know for a fact that The Guardian “Letter to the Editors” column has been more than a little selective in regard to letters critical of their Angola position. But the action of the bookstores is far the greater evil. It affects the entire movement very adversely – substituting unnecessary antagonism for comradely debate. The pro-China bookstores have been and should remain centers for dissemination of a range of pro-China views. Why narrow down the scope of the discussion now, when there’s so much disagreement and confusion? Then too, after The Guardian is suppressed – WHO’S NEXT?