HIS Sunday many thousands of people from all over Britainand many from overseas, will march through the streets of London in a tremendous demonstration of militant solidarity with the National Liberation Front of Vietnam. It is impossible to say just how many--estimates vary from twenty thousand and upwards. But there is every indication that the impact will be far in excess of the two previous mass demonstrations on the Vietnam issue: those of October last year and March 17 this year.

The struggle of the workers and peasants in Vietnam has become the focal point of the world-wide struggle against imperialism and capitalism. The heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people spearheads the fight of the oppressed masses everywhere.

The people of the so-called "Third World", engaged in an ever-growing fight against colonial and neo-colonial exploitation, are inspired by the example of Vietnam. In the heartlands of capitalism, and in the countries under pseudoSocialist bureaucratic domination, this year has seen a great resurgence of the revolutionary spirit. France, Czechoslovakia, and the student-led movements in dozens of major cities, the world movement for social revolution is at last on the offensive.

Contending Factions

In such a situation it is inevitable that there should be an intensive struggle among rival contenders for the leadership of such amovement. This despite the views of those comrades, ranging from the Anarchists to the Libertarian tendencies in such movements as International Socialism, who insist that no leadership is needed.

The experience of history shows that they are wrong. Certainly the mass have at times been capable of spontaneous revolutionary action; but in consolidating the gains of such action democratic leadership is essential, otherwise the way is open to counter-revolution.

In this country the movement for solidarity with Vietnam has inevitably become the testing-ground for rival claimants for leadership of the revolutionary struggle. In recent weeks sections of the national press have given considerable publicity to the controversy arising out of the objections and tactics of the October 27 demonstration. The impression has been given that the dispute is between people with similar aims, but differing in their degree of militancy, and in their choice of methods.

This is not so. Many of the contending factions differ not only in their approach, but in their goal also. The one thing that all shareis a common enemy--imperialism! This, however, does not mean that Socialists cannot sometimes cooperate on immediate tasks with those whose real aim is a totalitarian state. We are not sectarian; on the contrary, it is the sectarianism of those who are authoritarian in method as well as in aim which precludes any real liaison withthem.

Rival Organisation

The antics of the various Maoist groups in the weeks preceding this demonstration provide ample illustration of this. Their behaviour at the second meeting of the October 27th Ad-Hoc Committee showed that they had no interest whatsoever in a reasonable discussion. Screaming, shouting, the continuous interruption of chairman andspeakers, instead of orderly debate; quotations from the little Red Bible replacing logic.

Unable to dominate the committee, they then withdrew and set up a rival organisation--the "October 27 Committee for Solidarity with Vietnam". This has now the support of many, but by no means all of the Maoist sects. Other backers include some dissident branches of V.S.C., and some Black Power groups.

The point at issue when it became clear that co-operation was impossible was the choice of slogans. The Maoists insisted on the inclusion of one slogan: "Long Live Ho Chi Minh" which was totally unacceptable to a large section of the movement, and which if adopted would seriously have jeopardised the chances of gaining mass support for the demonstration.

If this had remained the only difference that the Maoists could seize upon, it would not have mattered. Their "British Vietnam Solidarity Front" would have been no more than a squalid nuisance. But at the same time a major controversy was developing in V.S.C., and the other organisations supporting the Ad-Hoc Committee over the objective and route of the march.

At the end of August the National Council of V.S.C. reached a compromise solution: the now well-publicised route from the Embankment via Australia House and Whitehall to Hyde Park, avoiding Grosvenor Square.

Immediately there was a storm of protest, in the organisations supporting the Ad-Hoc Committee as well as the breakaways. The V.S.C. proposal was put to the Ad-Hoc delegate meeting on September 24; there were also compromise proposals from London I.L.P. and other supporting bodies, but eventually the decision not to go to the U.S. Embassy was carried by a very narrow majority. But there has since been a considerable shift of support from the Ad-Hoc Committee to the rival body.

In addition many demonstrators who still support the original committee are determined to go to Grosvenor Square after leaving Hyde Park.

Tactical Error

All in all, the prospects for a completely united rally do not appear good; and it may well be that the majority decision by V.S.C. was a grave tactical error. Certainly they would seem to have seriously underestimated the strong feeling about the symbolic importance of the United States Embassy.

It cannot be denied that there are weighty arguments on both sides. The principal reason advanced for not going to Grosvenor Square was that it would have been too easy for the police to "box off" a small section of the demonstration. Despite this the decision to avoid confronting the symbol of U.S. Imperialism is seen by many as a capitulation.

But one thing has to be made clear. Many, perhaps a majority, of those who will try to reach Grosvenor Square have no connection whatever with the Maoist wreckers. If the B.V.S.F. and its associate bodies had never existed, there would have been this feeling that V.S.C. had erred, even though in good faith.

The vast majority of demonstrators, whether their objective be Hyde Park or the Embassy, repudiate the slanders of the B.V.S.F., the "Committee to DefeatRevisionism for Communist Unity", and the other creatures parasitic upon the revolutionary movements. These wretched little nonentities, whose instant reaction to the mildest disagreement is to vilify their opponents, to scream "police agent", have no place in our movement. When we cease to respect dissent, to allow free discussion, we shall be well on the way, not to Socialism, but to the kind of political madhouse that China now appears to be.

Whatever happens on Sunday, a real effort must be made afterwards to achieve a united movement--a unity on a broad front to include all sincere, militant opponents of imperialism.

One final thought: Many of those who have charged leaders of V.S.C. with being police agents have themselves been behaving remarkably like "agent-provocateurs"!