up the capitalist state.
Socialism.
The Draft correctly points out that the trade unions 'are not, and cannot be, a substitute for political partiés of the working class'. For revolutionaries, however, each 'trade union Dy IIs ver nature. mne arena or an ongoing united front of revolutionary part1es Wiln TerormIs! and non-part) masses", the task is clear. It is the TEnE tO wIn inC adcrsniD Ornd mass of workers organised in the unlons. orcakmne neunions rom their policies of class collaboration.
One of the most important error: in the Draft in this respect is its COmpIcLc aure Lo orovICC perspective for how this fight for torces wilhin ine bureaucracy asine ed. There is no attempt in the Draft anchuativc poneics must belaunenbureaucracy, nor the struggle that must be waged against RIGHT-LEFT DIVIDE This central question is conveniently avoided through advancing une nonon or tne rigni-ien divide in the labour movement. In aOlne so. • il avolos tne poluca. nature of the trade union bureauCracy - a rerormise bureacracy which must be politically confronted and defeated in order to win the masses from its leadership.
Trotsky puts this clearly in his writings on the English trade union movement:
*Up until now we have not mentioned the Labour Party, which in England, the classic country of trade unions, is only the political ransDosiuon ol ine same trade union bureaucracy. The same leadcrs guac inc wraac unions, Detray the general strike, lead the electoral campaien ana aer sic on ine ministries. The Labour Party and the tradeunions - these are not two brcipics, mncy arc ony a tecnucal The basis of revolutionary tacties in the trade unions is answering the draft of the new British Road to division of labour. Together they are tne rundamental support or tne domination of the English bourgeOIS e.1e aner cannot be over because thrown without overthrowing the Labounte burcaucracy. (1 BUREAUCRACY It is precisely because Labourite bureaucracy is the major political force which must be defeated in order to win the mass of workers in the unions to a revolutionary programme, that the concept of 'right-lefi" divide, a divide which for the CP runs through the bureaucracy, tailending the left bureaucracy.
Far from this "right-left' divide political within the bureaucracy expressing a contradiction between different CP would have it, it is actually a result ol arcrent class pressure: acting upon the bureaucracy.
Whilst tied hand and toot td colaboration with the capitalist class and its state, the bureaucracy nevertheless is based directly on the working class through its organisation in the trade unions.
In so far as it takes a left stance it does so in order to maintain is leadership over the workers moving into struggle at any point in time, and to keep those struggles within a rcrormisi ramcwork being "at core however. the left remains at core a left reformist Durcaucracy LEFT UNITY Does this mean at all times the revolutionaries should limit themselves to denouncing the bureaucracy, lefts and all? Clearly not. Revolutionaries_ have a duty to consistently enter into united action with the left leaders around concrete actually leads to aims and objectives which advance the struggle of the working class, rar CITON S TURCe Tod sunelt a healthy trend' programme. Furthermore, revolu-Dureaucaey donates SBHUSE decisively break from the lefts, the mutetney sen ourtne specinc almn. of the limited unity that has been achieved.
For the Draft British however, these "left political alliances' take on a very different meaning. They are strategic alliances and as such are alliances which — independent mass action of the class in its own interests - suppress that Wright is denounced as ultra-left' by the Communist Party.
action.
maintaining a consistent revolutionary prepared seventies, the Scanlon and Jones. was Road bureaucrats like Boyd principal architect. far from stimulating BOB WRIGHT speaking at the LCDTU Conference last month. Action which goes beyond the control of the likes of results of this policy of reliance on the 'left' bureaucrats have been demonstrated time and time again in the British class struggle. In the late sixties and early Communist Party oult allances witn leits such as the right wing who then turned around and sold workers the but people like Scanlon. Jones, of course, was its LCDTU, The result of the CP's policy was to leave millions of workers disarmed and demoralised in the face of the Labour Government's attacks, with their former leaders heading the attack upon them.
Even today the CP wish to insist that "Hugh Scanlon might have been wrong about the Social Contract, but he has played a magnificent role in the trade union movement', and that what is required is to convince mim or te error ornis ways.
UnILy At last month's conference of the Derek Robinson, CP member and Leyland steward, said that: "Those who attack those like Scanlon don't hesitate to attack people like me as well.
We freely admit to guilt on this score. berer Kooinson voree attha Leyland stewards conference last mona not to support struggic against the present phase of incomes poncy. u comes as no surprise to u that the same CP which supposedly DoDoses mic Docal Contract aes 1 such a manner.
ALTERNATIVE It reflects the "alternative' poli cies contained in the Draft itself, which include a government to exercise effective control over the operation of the economy', coupled with the 'extension of democracy TOUE mOusina cemocracy.si that independent unions could play a var mn subporane mne covern ment's general policies against attacks from the right".
in snort, unis is not a programm for struggle, but a programme for a *eft' Government to implement with supportive extra-parliamentary acuon Given this perspective, it is hardly surprising that the Broad Left of the Photo: Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers carries in its paper Engineering Bulletin ('the voice of progressives in the AUEW') programme centred on free collective bargaining, import controls and expansion or mous na nvesenent "implementation of Labour's election manifesto' the document which first set out the JOHC of class peace called CRUCIAL As became clear at the LCDTU conference, because it is crucial for the CP to build an alliance with the left bureaucrats, then any action which threatens that unity, which goes beyond what the lefts are prepared to countenance, becomes a barrier to unity and suddenly "ultra-left"
That is the logic of the CP strategy of 'left political alliance' — with the CICl before strengthening the actual struggles of uc Class IIsC •FOOTNOTES 1. Trotsky: The errors in principle of syndicalism.
----- pull-quotes -----
the drive to stimulate the extra-parliamentary mass struggle of the working class around a revolutionary programme. Such tactics must centre on the building of new organs of power of the working class and smashing The Communist Party has a quite different starting point. RICH PALSER continues our series of articles
British Road to Socialism Draft