The Labour leaders outdo the revolutionary left in the adjectives with which they attack the Tories. To listen to the Labour Party leaders you would sometimes think that Heath was the greatest enemy of the working class since Hitler. Barbara Castle says the government is "barbarie'. Heffer said it is carrying out a war against the working class. If this is the case then no effort must be spared to get this government removed from office.
But what is the reality? There have already been four huge political strikes against the Industrial Relations Act. The Labour leaders did not support one of them. Now five dockers have been arrested. Thousands of men are out in sympathy. If this government is barbaric every Labour leader should waste no time in calling for the extending of the strike, and for no retreat until the Heath government is out of office, Instead, at best, a strange silence exists. Where are the great appeals for action from the Labour Party or from the TUC and the trade union leaderships? Some Labour leaders even go further and actively attack the arrested dockers and the strikers.
However, despite the actions of its leaders we are actually for a Labour government, even led by Wilson and company replacing the Tories. Not because we think Wilson is any better than Heath. The problems of the working class can only be solved by a government of the working class, a state of the working class, and an economy controlled by the working class. Any actions that need to be taken must have their chief aim to explain this. The Labour Party defends capitalism, but it is not a simple capitalist party like the Tories. Millions of workers see it as the party of their class. Revolutionaries must always fight with such a party against an openly capitalist one. But a Labour government is by no means the end of the question. The immediate aim must be to get the present government out of office but every Labour party supporter and trade unionist must ask himself the question "After this, what next?"
A Labour Government's dilemma Would a Labour government get rid of the Industrial Relations Act and release the dockers? The answer to this is probably "yes' if it was put in office directly out of a struggle for these objectives. What would be the result? How would Labour then be forced to act? What problems would it face? To anderstand that we have to understand why the Industrial Relations Act and its Labour counterpart - In Place of Strife were introduced in the first place. Once that is decided then we can see where the real power lies.
Firstly the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act would not by any means be the end of the story, Simply repealing the Act is not going to solve the problems of unemployment or housing or prices.
As long as industry remains in the hands of private employers then production is for profit. If profit is not maintained then neither is production. If production is not maintained and increased then there are no goods and resources to get rid of unemployment, cut prices, help the pensioners, improve the wages of the employed and so on. International monetary crisis and balance of payments crisis rapidly lead the government into vicious attacks on the working class. This is the iron law that has gripped every Labour government.
You do not have to be a revolutionary to understand that. Labour minister Sir Stafford Cripps, in a moment of unustal realism, said that "the idea that the wielders of economic power will co-operate with a Labour government is quite fantastic"
By this of course he meant that the owners of industry will never co-operate with a Labour government which attacks the system of production for profit. They were very happy for a long time to co-operate with the last Wilson government The way in which things work is only too obvious. In 1964 the Labour government's announcement that it intended to give an increase to pensioners led to £800million being sent out of the country in three weeks. Similarly any sign that the working class may be getting sufficiently militant to threaten profits sends the employers and the economy into crisis. For example, immediately following the government's back down on the arrest of the three dockers et Chobham Farm, shares fell on the stock exchange and the value of the pound began to fall on the foreign exchange. This led to the recent "floating' of the pound. Even now, when the docks, lorry drivers, miners and other workers are striking in support of the imprisoned men, shares have fallen on the stock exchange and the value of the pound has fallen still further. To fight with the Labour Party against the Tories even to the point of having a Labour government is absolutely correct. But a Labour government which came to power after the Tories had been thrown out would be a Labour government faced with a complete economic crisis. If the working class could force a government out of office, what individual employer could feel safe? What employer could rely on their profits being maintained? Right from the beginning the Labour government would be faced with a capitalist economy in crisis. To get the economic power to raise wages, get rid of unemployment, build decent houses for all, hold back prices and so on it is necessary to nationalise under workers control at once all major companies in industry, all transport, all land, all banks. Where is real power?
If economic power lies in the hands of private employers, then you wouldn't think that there would be too much trouble in getting it out of their hands. For example, 81% of shares in all companies are owned by 1% of the population. If, to aid the vast majority of the population this 19 were deprived of their control of industry why should there be any problem? The working class has no interest in taking away the money people have invested in owning their own shops, or small one-man businesses or in depriving people of their savings in the banks. On the contrary. people's savings would be protected against inflation. People doing skilled trades in one-man businesses would be protected against the competition of vast monopolies. Why couldn't a government simply pass one single law depriving the 1% of the population who own 81% of private industry of their ownership and then set about planning an economy to produce not for profit but for the benefit of all? The answer is simple. Power lies in the hands of that 1%.
According to the belief of Labour politicians real power lies with Parliament. Wilson once expressed it when he said "Whatever people say, at an election, the old establishment only have one vote at the end of the day.
So has the engineer and miner in my constituency. That is what is decisive". In fact the view that power lies in Parliament must be about the most unrealistic belief ever held. What can 630 men sitting in an old building in Westminster possibly do as the source of power. In fact for these men to influence anything at all they have to rely on machinery of the state. There are vast ministries helping to run the economy.
There are armies of economic 'experts"
to plan production. There are a host of courts and lawyers to enforce the law.
So also there is the police. Finally, as the situation in the North of Ireland shows, only too clearly, there is the Army.
Without all these Parliament is helpless and it is therefore in the hands of this machine, and not of the 630 M.P.s, that real power lies.
This army of people, who control communications, have in their possession all the information necessary to run the state, and who possess all the armed forces of the state, are supposed to be neutral and not involved in politics. In real life of course the situation ie comnletely different Anvone who has security office will know just how 'neutral" are the people there. Anyone engaged in a serious strike will know just how "neutral' the police are. The army is the worst of the lot. The officers, recruited from well off sections of the population, used to ordering people arourid, given special priveleges and rights, are by far the most reactionary section of the population. In France in 1968, the generals openly said they wanted to bring tanks into Paris to crush the general strike of that year. In Britain the chief of infantry training, Brigadier Kitson, has written a book which says that all the resources of the Army must be placed at the disposal of the police and state to investigate trade unionists, left wing organisations, break strikes, etc. He recommends "displays of force and even limited massacres like when 13 people were shot in Derry, as the way to deal with the situation. Of course at the moment his ideas are not likely to be put into practice but it is easy to imagine just how 'neutral this type of man, who occupies one of the leading positions in theArmy, is likely to be. This whole machine of civil servants, 'experts', army men, local government officials, the police, the courts and so on would immediately sabotage any attempt to take economic power out of the hands of the owners of private industry. Even if that were not successful they would decide, as they have done in Greece and Spain and a hundred other countries, to overthrow any real socialist government. A government really determined to act in the interests of the working class can't afford to base itself on the machinery of the present state. It has to base itself on the organisations of the working class. As the class which will gain from any changes made it is only the organisations of the working class that can be absolutely relied upon to carry out any changes needed. In short power for the employing class lies in Whitehall, Sandhurst, and Scotland Yard. Power for the working class lies in its trade union organisations, councils of action, factory organisations, and st stewards and factory committees up and down the country.
Organise in the factories and areas. The immediate reaction of the militant working class to a situation of crisis is to hold demonstrations, strikes, occupations - not to go and see the local councils to see what can be done or to start writing letters to their M.P.s. The aim of real working class leaders in the Labour Party would be to strengthen and organise this response. The majority of Labour M.P.s should immediately return to their constituences. Nothing of importance will occur in Parliament. M.P.s could tour factories calling for strikes. All the facilities of Labour headquarters with money, phones. buildings, duplicating and printing facilities could immediately be placed at the disposal of strikers. Labour controlled councils could vote money, offices, printing facilities, give transport and so on to strikers. The response of the working class instead of being weakly organised could be massive and immediate. But instead of this we get absolutely nothing. What have the Labour members been doing?
Reg Prentice, Labour spokesman on Employment, said to the Guardian on Saturday: "1 have no sympathy at all for Bernie Steer and the others goaled...They were wrong to defy the Court".
Callaghan said that the law must be obeyed Tom Driberg, M.P. for Barking, said he was against the jailings but the only definite thing he said he was going to do was to visit the men in jail.
Of course, thousands of ordinary Labour Party members up and down the country will be right in the lead of strikes and demonstrations in support of the imprisoned dockers. But rank and file action is not nearly as effective if it is not co-ordinated centralised action. If the Labour leaders were serious in their attacks on the Act and on the Government, they would organise the UNDER W "ONE OF THESE TWO FLAG:
BE The same applies to the TUC and the trade union leadership. Up and down the couhtry thousands of trade unionists will be walking out in protest. Think how enormously more effective this would be if the TUC and the trade union leaderships threw their whole weight behind it. At once not tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands but millions of workers would be drawn into the movement. Every employer, judge and capitalist politician in the country would quake. Instead nothing is done. Instead of fighting Heath, the TUC leaders decided to meet him on Monday evening to discuss the situation". Again how can we take pledges of opposition to the Act, to the Tories, and even to capitalism, seriously when nothing is done in a situation like this. What the working class needs from a leadership is determined action and not Sunday School speeches.
What to do now Most members of the Labour and Communist Parties think a Labour government, or at least a left one, would be able to take over industry in the interests of the working class. Thousands of ordinary trade unionists have not made up theri mind. Nevertheless it should be possible to get all these people to agree on the aims of the struggle even if they differ as to whether it will ever be achieved through the Labour Party. What is needed is united action on agreed aims in which everyone can be allowed to put forward their own view on the Labour Party. In this way, provided there is no backsliding and compromise, we will see in practice who is right on the question of the Labour Party.
In a situation of crisis however the normal channels can't be relied upon to act swiftly. The trade union movement and Labour Parties can get so cluttered up with red tape that it is not possible to do anything. This is probably alright in periods when nothing much is happening. Then there is time for dozens of committees to meet. In a situation like now however that is far too slow. Events change from hour to hour. Men and women with new ideas which fit the situation come forward. Organisations which can reflect rapidly the decisions of the mass of workers are needed. In every factory a strike committee could be elected. Lockl Councils of Action could organise things on a local level. Finally, however,
H FLAG?
GOT TO COME DOWN-AND IT WONT conference of representatives of workers in factories, docks, mines and so on, must be held. Faced with a nationally organised government and state, the working class must organise itself nationally. The TUC and the Labour Party can't do this properly. Certainly, the TUC Congress should be recalled and there should be an emergency Labour Party Conference, but it is not possible simply to rely on this. What is needed is a national conference of men and women directly elected to decide a national policy for this struggle. Such a conference might be called by the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions. If it was it must be completely supported. However in the past the LCDTU has been too slow off the mark. It is necessary to call for such a conference, which could be sponsored by a big factory or union section, regardless of whether the LCDTU acts or not. These local and national organisations are needed whether the present government remains in office arid continues its attacks on the working class or whether it isforced out of office and replaced with Labour. If any government which was really acting against capitalism found itself being sabotaged and threatened by the machinery ofstate, then the vital thing would be to demand that the government base itself on the nationally organised power of the workers organisations and not on the old state. Revolutionaries think that this is what will eventually be necessary, but it is not necessary to agree with that to support calling for Councils of Action, strike committees and a national conference of workers representatives. These can be used either to support a Labour government or, eventually, to base a new workers power on. Let the practice of the struggle decide which of these two is necessary. But now we need to organise the maximum number of people, whatever their other political views, to call for: *The Formation of Councils of Action in every area; *A National Conference of factory and workplace representatives: *Worker Action to Smash the Act: *Down with the Tory Government: *Nationalisation of industry, transport In any major struggle between the organised working class and the state, there are huge sections of the population which are outside the trade unions, or even outside the working class, who can be won to opposition to the state, It is quite clear that the present crisis of British capitalist society hits not only trade unionists but, in an equally severe way, students, tenants, the unemployed, unorganised workers, working class housewives etc. Any government of a capitalist Britain must attract a very deep hostility from all of these social groups. The defeat of any attack on the trade union movement by the state is very much in these people's interests, and the possibilities of organising them to take sides in the conflict are very real.
In any serious and prolonged struggle it | is vital to win over and organise every sympathetic section of the population.
Even if the struggle is a long one and white collar technical and professional workers cannot, as a whole, be drawn at once into the strike, then there are still many individuals who would place their talents at the service of strikers.
Even in many areas of the trade unions support will not at first be complete and many factories and work places may do nothing. Even here however there are many individual workers who can assist in the struggle and, given support and material resources, would be able to carry out systematic agitation amongst their work mates.
A serious showdown with the capitalist state will require the full summoning of the power of the working-class including women workers and working-class housewives. The state and the capitalist press, radio and television, will attempt to exploit to the hilt the diffcult position which working-class women find themselves in during any strike period to weaken the resistance of the working class movement from within.
The active involvement of entire working-class families in the struggle is an absolute necessity if these manoeuvres of the ruling class are to be blocked.
All these groups of the population, incl uding the unemployed, students, professional workers, housewives, and workers isolated in right-wing workplaces, can be organised in support committees to aid the struggle. Winning over these groups is vital for the struggle because, ultimatly.
if they are not won to the side of the working class they will be won to the side of the state. In 1926, when faced with a united working-class movement and a General Strike, the government was able to use the forces of the middle-class - students, teachers, professional workers. By enrolling them as Special Constables and in the semi-official OrgWhen the NIRC sent the five dockers to jail it insisted that beyond the immediate questions at stake was the issue...whether these men are to be allowed to opt out of the rule of law. Can they pick and choose, relying upon it for the protection of their homes and families but rejecting it when, even temporarily, it obstructs their industrial objectives? It is a very simple issue, but vastly important, for our whole way of life is based upon the acceptance of the rule of law.
This judgement puts in a nutshell certain very important ruling class myths. They claim civilisation, our way of life, depends not on the collective labours of the working class but on the rule of law'. What is the crime of the dockers if not that of defending the livelihood of themselves and their familics. And NIRC has the impudence to claim that it is their rule of law" which protects omes and Tames.
The rule of whose law? It could not be clearer that it is the rule of their law. the law which defends the rights and priviledges of the owners and employers In a thousand and one ways it ensures that the vast majority nave to self neir labour to live while a containerisation The blacking of container lorries was started unofficially as a move against the stripping and stuffing of containers away from the docks by non-dockworkers.The last years have seen massive redundancies on the docks and a large increase in the number of men on the Temporary Unattached Register. One major reason for this, apart from the fact that containerisationin itself requires less labour,is that numerous companies (including many which also employed men on the docks) realised that by employing non-dock labour at lower rates they could cut costs and thereby increase profits. For Support Committees!
anisation for the Maintenance of Supplies, the government built up a powertul apparatus with which to break the strike.
Now, however, the situation is very different: many of the same social groups who rallied round the government in 1926 can at the very least, be neutralized in this struggle; others (particularly the students -as was dramatically shown during the miners' strike) can be very active and useful allies. The struggles of May/June "68 in France, when strikers were supported by journalists, broadcasters, writers, lawyers, doctors, shows what can be done in this direction.
Support Committees Having recognised the importance and possibility of a mass movement of solidarity being built with forces outside the ranks of the trade union movement, the question remains how do we organise it? Undoubtedly, strike committees, factory committees, and Councils of Action will be developed if the struggle is a long one. They can coordinate and extend local strikes and occupations. But these bodies will group together representatives of that section of the working class which is in the leadership of the struggle. They will necessarily be concerned primarily with tactical questions of the struggle; and it is perfectly correct that these matters should be decided by those who are most directly involved. Obviously, big questions on calling strikes, demonstrations and the demands to raise can only be done by workers organisations not by committees just representing individuals. Nevertheless, these individuals can play a very valuable role in aiding the struggle.
What can be Done The role of support committees was vividly shown during the miners strike earlier this year. For example in Colchester, students, white collar workers, unemployed workers and others distributed leaflets, printed posters, watched the ports for scab coal, aided in pickets and performed a hundred and one tasks, In France recently similar actions were taken during the strike at a firm called Joint Francais, Here, housewives, students, tenants and even school children collected money, organised demonstrations, picketed and leafletted every house in the area to inform people of the aim of the strike. The solidarity built up was so tremendous that although the strikers were attacked by police armed with clubs and tear gas, the demonstrations of five and ten thousand plus the solidarity of the strike led to a great victory.
All these things can be done on an even bigger scale during the present struggle.
All Labour Party offices for example could be placed at the disposal of such committees. The answer to anyone who wants to help in the struggle is simple. Contact local trade unionists and strikers and form a support committee in every area now.
The Big Con Trick small minority own and control the fruits of that labour.
Faced with this blunt exercise of bosses justice what has been the reaction of the leaders of the Labour Party and TUC? Of course, they deplore the present situation but at the same time they uphold the sanctity of the law. Reg. Prentice, Labour's Shadow Minister of Employment, declared that he had no sympathy for Bernie Steer and the others goaled. They were wrong to organise picketing and blacking against the policy of their union. They were even more wrong to defy the Court. The Industrial Relations Act is a bad law, but it is the law and no one can claim to be above it being challenged by masses of workers up and down the country. By taking action for the unconditional release of the dockers and the immediate smashing of the I.R.Act they confront the rule of law the rules expressing the interests of capitalism. If the working class is to inflict a real defeat on the employing class then it must begin to organise itself having no truck with the ruling class's myths about law being above class struggle!
container. work recognised as dock work, paid at dock rates, and was extended by the London dockers from simple blacking of container lorries coming into the docks to full-scale picketing of selected container depots such as Chobham Farm, the Midland Cold Store and the U.K.Cold Store. This has been extremely effective not only in driving away work from these depots but also in enabling the dockers to identily much more successfully those hauliers using containers packed by non-dock labour. For a full analysis of the situation on the docks, and the FOR UNITED ACTION BY THE ORG ANISATIONS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY LEFT.
A Statement by the Political Committee of the International Marxist Group.
The arrest of the five dockers and the massive response which it is likely to evoke from the working class throughout the country has opened up enormous possibilities for struggle against the Industrial Relations Act, the Tory government, and the entire capitalist system.
In ordering the arrest of the dockers the state has openly challenged the entire trade union movement. A victory for the Government in this would be a collosal defeat for the working class. A defeat for the Government would disrupt the entire strategy of the British ruling class and damage the authority of all the institutions of the capitalist system. That is why the present situation calls for an organised and united response by the entire revolutionary left.
The greatest danger in the present situation is clearly the attempt to divert into reformist or parliamentary channels the struggle of the working class. This is, of course, always dangerous but it becomes particularly obvious and particularly dangerous in a period of upsurge.
The complete failure of the traditional leaderships of the working class and the absence of a mass revolutionary party places a big responsibility on the small revolutionary organisations. If the TUC and the Labour Party leaders are able to control the working class and prevent a mass response then it is still vital for the revolutionary organisations to demonstrate to the mass of the working class that at a moment of great possibilities both for victory and defeat, the revolutionaries can pool their resources and response in such a way as to aid to the fullest extent the successful outcome of the struggle. We therefore call upon the International Socialists, the Socialist Labour League, the Communist Federation of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Militant group, the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist Leninist) and all other organisations of the revolutionary left to unite their activities to the greatest extent possible by establishing national and local joint co-ordinating committees. Secondly, we propose to scen the greatest possible agreement for a common political basis for intervention within the mass organisations of the working class and such organisations as the LCDTU. The Politieal Committee of the IMG therefore calls for an immediate meeting of representatives of organisations of the revolutionary left who agree with these We suggest that the following questions are of prime importance for discussion and joint action by the revolutionary left.
D The occupation of factories, the formation of elected strike committees and Councils of Action.
2) The fight to bring down the government through the direct action of the working class.
3) The formation of support committees in every 4) The immediate calling of an emergency LCDTU conterence to work out a programme of mass action. 5) For workers action to smash the I.R.Act.
We do not propose that any such agreement should in any way restriet the freedom of propaganda of any organisation participating nor is it in any way to be counterposed to unity with any individuals or organisations.
the Communist Party, the Labour Party, Chartists etc. in the working class movement. STOP PRESS As we go to press, two new factors have entered the situation. First, the TUC has openly declared to Heath that it has not the slightest intention of organising a fight. At their meeting in Downing Street on Monday night the TUC leaders merely expressed their regret at the present situation, and their expectation of (rather than their intention to organise) continued industrial disruption until the dockers are released. Secondly, the report of the Jones-Aldington committee has been published. Its main proposals are the iated agreements for more jobs for dockers in container depots. It hopes to see the TUR abolished by September, by sharing out the 1,700 men presently on it among the docks employers and instituting a system of work-sharing. But the success of this proposal is also dependent on a larger number of men opting for voluntary severance on the basis of the increased payments.
These proposals leave many questions unanswered, and we shall be dealing with these at some length in the next issue of this broadsheet.
Meteyard, John Weal, Judith White.
DISTRIBUTION: Phil Sanders Published by Relgocrest for The Red Mole, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.1.
01-837 6954 Printed by F.l. Litho (T.U.) Ltd., 182 Pentonville Road. London N 1
Some newspapers have tried to paint a pietthrough its industrial monopoly (when it mon Market (which will get its goods inside the tarriff walls, "modernise" big sectis unable to integrate even the TUC into
----- pull-quotes -----
The myths of capitalist law are swallowed whole by the Labour Party just at the time when they are
abolition of the Temporary Unattached Register, an increase in the amount of severance pay, and negot-
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: Tariq Ali, Robin Blackburn, Peter Gowan, Alan Jones, Martin