isation of the fimancing of stodents unions is nothing less than a straightforwand attempt to emasculate revo the past period, in studh the expansion o activists in the college higher edu Son has provolked crises both institutional and idcological in this field, has warned the bourgroisie of the explosiveness of this sector and indicated that this technocratic reorientation is as much a political question as a technical one. The Government quite rightly recognises the big role which reolutionaries can play in mobilising radicalised students, as well as the irritation they could be in the coming bodies. This, however, did nothing to alter confrontation with the working class over the next period. It is this role which they are out to destroy. The NUS in failing to understand the precise nature of the attack has laid the basis at its annual conference at Margate for almost certain defeat and implementation of these proposals.
In the last issue of The Red Mole (15th November) I sketched the genesis of the need of the bourgeoisie to alter the present structure of SU's as a necessary step in the emasculation to which 1 have referred. What is proposed to deal with the situation, however, is not direct state attack but a far more sophisticated attempt to integrate them into the college structures. The consultative document puts it this way: "to change the basis on which student unions are financed, and to place the responsibility for providing and maintaining union fadlities on each academic institution."
The advantages of this are obvious. It puts the onus for emasculating the radical students on the college authorities-a much safer bet than NUS. In the same stroke, this displaces the point of impact of the change from the national to the local level. This, it is presumably hoped, will reinforce the previously sporadic and isolated nature of student struggles in this country. At the very least it will hinder a co-ordinated response from students nationally. After the transition has been consummated the bourgeoisie could get by no matter what ranting and raving NUS did nationally, in as much as the possibility of it lending actions on the ground would be more or less non-existent once the integration had reached a certain point.
Financial Accountability: the first step to capitulation Of course, the present leadership of NUS has no intention of doing any such thing. It is all in favour of sound so long as this is not accompanied by any fury. For the moment the simple message that SU's are under attack has come across to the majority of students. But this can mean all things to all men. For the Stadent Conservative association this means that the wrong method has been chosen. For them a trar and a reliance on the courts to dis dipline radical stadents is all that is needed Whereas the 20,000 lobbying students of list week were more concerned about the financing of clubs and societies than the threat to independent political actions of students.
The issue is by no means simply one of finance, although it is true that the document goes a long way to obscure matters in this respect. The proposals are not merely: "To encourage authorities in colleges and universities to measure the claims for student union facilities against other claims on their resources." The mere £3m outlayed to SU's out of a total budget for higher education of some £300m. should make this clear. Nor, for that matter, is the concern financial in the proposal to alter the situation whereby political payments are made from: *funds derived from compulsory subscription on purposes which would more appropriately be supported by voluntary subscription of individual students", both are mere tools in the labour movement'. Such an attitude is a process of removing that cover which militant students have been able to utilise in the past. Given this, the accession made by NUS conference to the principle of financial accountability is precisely the stepping stone the government needs. Very quickly it will become apparent that this does not affect boat clubs the militancy of rowers will then decline, and the radicalised element who were depending on these people will be demoralised and succumb to the threat of financial sanctions to limit their which explains that the proposals are not actions.
Union Autonomy: Myth or Reality? What will happen now is that those moves by the In conjunction with this we must also college authorities which have already been made to blackmail students from taking independent political action by the threat of the withdrawal of finance will now be generalised. This action, therefore, is not something which will be launched at some definite point in the future. It is the strengthening of a trend which is already underway and has been for a number or years.
The view that student unions have ever been autonomous is a myth. What we did see through '67, 68 and 69 was a certain push towards a greater political autonomy for students in a number of directions. Part of this resulted in a greater appearance of autonomy in the local unions, reinforced by representation of students and students unions on a number of governing the situation whereby student union constitutions, and amendments to them, still have to be ratified by the college authorities. And the last two years have seen a counter-offensive by the college authorities on all these fronts;
an offensive, moreover, which has recently received open support by the Government in the attempts by the Privy Council to reduce student representation on almost every governing body which has come under its scrutiny. This is why the present proposals are only the strengthening of a trend: a trend, however, which has been initiated by the college authroities themselves. So far it is only the strongest authorities which have pursued this counter-offensive. The Government proposals will now strengthen the hands of the weaker elements and force them into taking some form of action against Their own students.
In this context, the idea accepted by NUS, that some form of alliance can be forged with Vice Chancellors and College principals is disastrous. Although there will certainly be criticisms of this or that formulation, the general thrust of the proposals come as much from the college authorities as it does from the Government. This is stated quite clearly with regard to the universitites (where most of the political activity has hitherto taken place): here the enquiry "was conducted.... by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals".
Nor should the reactionary role of this body in the discussions on the document University Development in the Seventies be forgotten, when it solemnly accepted for discussion such proposals as "the requirement that grantaided students should enter specified kinds of employment for a period after graduation, which might have the effect of reducing applications". To base a strategy for fighting the Government's plans on an alliance with the college authorities would be a recipe for certain defeat. After all, the proposals to integrate student unions into these institations is based precisely on the understanding that the college authorities will be willing partners in the implementation of the Governmon s plans At this stage, two further points also need to be made. Firstly, we reject totally the DES proposals and that position is strictly nonnegotiable. We are not prepared to negotiate our political independence-on the contrary we must fight to extend it. Already the NUS Executive have gone to the DES and sought "clarification' on a number of questions; and they also manoeuvered a formula at the conference whereby they would be allowed to negotiate. Such moves are a dangerous concession which can only prepare the way for a future compromise. For us the meaning of these proposals is already crystal clear; there is nothing to negotiate about, for they can only be rejected in toto.
Secondly, one of the loudest calls during the struggle will undoubtedly be to 'involve the healthy one, for it rejects the idea of student power' and recognises that-student struggles have only any meaning in the wider context of the class struggle. But we must be clear what we mean by this. We emphatically do not mean meetings between NUS bureaucrats and TUC bureaucrats, nor empty calls for trade union support. Unless the question is approached extremely concretely it will go no further than wishful thinking. What is first of all necessary is a political campaign mainly about finance but are in essence at attempt to smash the political organisation of students in support of the class struggle.
attempt to involve in our actions those sections of the trade union movement which can be most closely involved in the struggle: the staff associations (AUT, ATTI, NUT, etc) and those workers whose servicing function is of vital importance in the running of these institutions. The experiences of North Western Poly and Norwich (involvement of staff, however half-hearted) and Reading (UPW blacking of administration mail) show that the development of such concrete links is both necessary and possible in advancing student struggles. We must try to get invitations to local trades councils and Union branch incetings to explain our case. But one should not assume that the mobilisation of the TU movement is a precondition for our success. We do not water down our politics to get support from Vic Feather or Clive Jenkins.
Strategy for counter-offensive What we are being asked to endorse is a totally naive view about the growth of so called "student consciousness". Here massive involvement in low level activity on a completely nonpolitical basis is supposed to lead to a next stage of greater understanding and involvement and more militancy. This ridiculous assumption which is canvassed by the CP of course meshes in very well with that of the right wing, For the very reason that being at the level of student consciousness' means doing precisely nothing, it is fully endorsed by the right wing. Hence the unprincipled bloc at conference. This misconception stems from a reliance on a view of students as some sort of workers and the NUS as a trade union. That the CP does not even understand workers struggles is not to the point here. For, whereas workers in their day to day struggles depend precisely on the need to unite all their class, this is not true of students. Here, the nature of the struggle is such that it does not demand that the whole of the student body be involved as a precondition for success In fact, it is more nearly the case that the mobilisation of a minority is the precondition for attracting wider layers. That is to say, the consciousness of these wider layers is only to be developed in the struggle initiated by a minority. Our strategic aim is the preservation of the political independence of students, hence student union autonomy. WE HAVE NO ECONOMIC POWER only the ability to take political actions. It is precisely the prevention of this which is the aim of the present proposals. It has to be shown that the outcome will in fact be completely the reverse. Rather than guaranteeing a quiet life, it should be -the signal for an upsurge in student militancy. Any tactic which is based on low level activity like petitions, lobbies of parliament, representation to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, etc. is not only certain to fail but will be counter-productive: it will be demoralising and productive of precisely that quiescence which is necessary in order to bring in these changes. The tactics recomUNI OF LON 20,000 students marched in London on November 17th against the Tory proposals mended must be the most militant right from the start. Strikes, demonstrations, nationally co-ordinated occupations are the only kind of actions which have any chance of being successful. After all it is because students have taken such actions in the past to show that they mean business that the Government is now launching its counter-offensive. Only in this way will we mobilise militant students and draw in wider layers: success is not guaranteed, but it is the only way.
The Liaison Committee for the Defence of Students Unions It is for these reasons that full support should be given to the Liaison Committee established by the Left at NUS Conference. It is hoped that in the first instance this body will provide an initiative for militant action to be taken in the colleges on the proposed days of action of December 8th and January 23rd. But this will be only one stage in gaining the necessary credibility to swing behind it militants in the colleges. Far more important than this will be its role in coordinating and mobilising meaningtul support for those colleges who will be in the vanguard of the struggle against their own authorities as these proposals begin to bite and give a boost to a counter-attack from these authorities. Only militant action on a sound political basis will be successful: only the Liaison Committee has the potential to begin this process. All militants must attempt to affiliate their Unions to this body-or at the very least to affiliate. Delegates must come from every college to the conference in London on December 4th to plan intervention on December 8th.* No to financial accountability!
For total political independence! Total rejection of the Government proposals!
No to negotiations!
No to 'Clarification"!
Fight to extend student union autonomy! No collaboration.
Fight for student-worker solidarity!
-J. Clynes *For further details phone: 278 2616
Peter Graham:
IMG holds memorial meeting 300 militants attended a memorial meeting organised by the International Marxist Group (BSFI) on Friday 12th November, 1971, to pay tribute to our late comrade Peter Graham, who was assassinated in Dublin several weeks ago. The Chairman, Gerry Lawless, announced that the meeting was held not to weep, but to organise and that was the general tenor of the meeting. Bob Purdie spoke on behalf of the IMG, Frank Roche and Raynor Lysaght spoke on behalf of the Irish Fourth Internationalists. Both of them stressed that Peter's death had only made them even more determined to carry on his work till final victory had been achieved. Cde Roche added: His assassins will be brought to task. We will avenge Peter. Of that we are sure." Tariq Ali spoke on behalf of the IEC of the Fourth International and said that Pete Graham was only the latest in a long line of Trotskyist martyrs: that what was important was the political ideas Peter had fought for and these must be constantly stressed. Bernadette Devlin, who had agreed to speak at the meeting and had confirmed arrangements only the day before it took place failed to turn up. No reasons were given and no questions asked. The meeting raised 230 for the comrades of the Fl working in Eire.
A Peter Graham Memorial Fund has also been set up. Cdes interested in donating money or in collecting it should write to: Peter Graham Memorial Fund, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.1.
Gerry Roche Imprisoned
On Tuesday, 2nd November, Gerry Roche was sentenced to four months in Brixton prison on a charge of assaulting a policeman on the August 15th demo against internment last summer. Because of the lack of : anests or police violence on the large October 31st demo, the one in August was a victory for the police: their systematic provocation was followed by 20 arrests.
Innocent of the 'crime' but a militant in the Irish Solidarity Campaign and a steward on the demo, Comrade Roche's sentence was the harshest of all. The magistrate said that four months would be enough to sober him and teach him not to take the law into his own hands. In fact Cde. Roche had been arrested after falling to the ground when the police pressed forward. He was arrested and charged as soon as he stood up again. The police fix trials so well these days that their statement took precisely 1½ minutes and they didn't bother to seriously cross-examine the defendant or his witness. As a loyal member of the bar said afterwards: " When the police want to win a case they take it to Bow Street. And being Irish too, he didn't stand a chance." "It can't happen here"
In response to the recent revelations of U.S. Defence Department sponsored research on dying cancer patients (needless to say not private fee paying patients), our own Department of Health and Social Security has issued a bland denial that a similar occurrence could happen in a British hospital.
To date some rather vague allegations have been carried out at the Royal Free and at the Hammersmith hospitals. While penetrating questions need to be put to these two powerful teaching and researching institutions, we should not forget that St. Thomas's on the South Bank has actually published defence sponsored research conducted on patients. Again, they were dying cancer patients, 10 with leukaemia and 18 with other cancers. The work was carried out by Dr. H.E. Webb a consultant neurologist at Thomas's, the there was full official backing.
and Australia share BBW research.
ground?
Journal, Vol. 1, 258-266 (1966). been made by Papworth that similar work has Professor of Haematology G. Wetherley-Mein, Dr C.E. Gordon Smith, Director of the Microbiolozical Research Establishment at Porton, and a senior scientific worker also from PortonDolores McMahon. * The financial acknowledgements are to the Thomas's Endowment Fund, to the Max Rayne Foundation, to the research fund of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. (Dr Gordon Smith during his professional career has commuted back and forth between LHS and Porton, he is presently at LS again). The acknowledgements to the defence establishment and ministries for their financial support has been modestly ommitted, but unless defence scientists have been given an unusual degree of freedom in carrying out colla- school. borative research, it is reasonable to assume that Webb, a specialist in tropical viruses had found two (Lanyat and Kyasanur Forest) common to monkeys, but not to men, which had the effect of modifying cell structure. The idea was to introduce the virus to cancer patients on the off chance that this might beneficially offset the abnormal cell structures of cancer. What happened? No much, except that several of these dying people became feverish where before they were non febrile, four experienced a mild and fleeting improvement which might have been spontaneous, and 2 developed, in addition to their cancer, encephalitis-a very serious brain disease. They all died. What happened to Dr. Webb? Well, he went off to work at Porton. For obvious reasons we do not know the nature of his subsequent research, but we do know that he was a neurologist not a cancer specialist. We also know that encephalitis is part of America's Biological Armoury, and that under the Quadrupartite Agreement, Britain, the U.S., Canada, The question which remains is - were the patents in hospital beds or in a defence proving * The work is reported in the British Medical of Africa.
North America.
The news in brief Cadre schools:
CADRE SCHOOLS: "Without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary practice."
In the last two months the IMG has organised two successful cadre schools for members and sympathisers. The first school was attended by 250 comrades and discussed the following items: * The Workers Struggles in Europe and the Problems of European Capitalism. * The colonial Revolution and the Theory of Permanent Revolution. * The Building of the Fourth International:
Its past, its present and its future: * The main reporter at the school was Ernest Mandel.
The most recent school was on Latin America and its purpose was to acquaint IMG and SL militants on the problems confronting our movement in that part of the world. The fol.
lowing aspects were discussed: • Permanent Revolution in Latin America;
from the founding of the Communist International to the Cuban Revolution.
* The Trotskyist movement in Latin America:
The Bolivian experience/Chile/Argentina.
• The tasks of the Fourth International in Latin America.
The reporters were three comrades from the Latin American Commission of the Fourth International and 200 militants attended the Rhodesia sell-out finally takes pla For the last six years now successive Labour and Tory government's have been engaged in a desperate attempt to force the white racist leader in Zimbabwe to make verbal "concessions" which would enable Britain to recognise his regime and resume trade relations directly instead of mediating them via Portugal and South Africa Readers will remember the lengths to which Wilson went in an attempt to appease white racism. We stress this because one can expect the "outrage" which will greet tt Tory success in the House of Commons from Labour M.P.'s-the same who would have welcomed a deal had Wilson and gang been in power. The policy of the Tories conforms admirably to the analysis we offered to the changes which were taking place in the political strategy of the Tories, several issues back.
In the next issue of The Red Mole we will deal in sor detail both with the problems confronting the nationalis in Zimbabwe as well as the general problem of the libera Subs. E1 per annum; E2 airmail to Africa, Asia, Latin America,
----- pull-quotes -----
pledge the support of their Socialist Society A number of Unions are already certain to