offensive over the past few months has been an intense propaganda campaign about *Parliamentary sovereignty" and the rule of law. Such arguments have thrown the reformist leaders of the working class movement into complete confusion, since they too are ardent supporters of the rule of law".
In fact, 'the law is a deadly enemy of the working class. All the great struggles of the workers' mrvement-from the Tolpuddie Martyrs to the freeing of the five-have been won against the law. No law which purports to represent the interests of the working class has ever been passed and enforced unless the workers' movement already had the strength to defend its interests without the aid of such a law.
The development of a statutory incomes policy with Phase 3 as its latest stage-now brings the law in as a continual regulator of the economic struggle. This has touched off a big debate inside the workers movement on the "rule of law" and the working class attitude towards it.
For revolutionaries the 'rule of law' is only a veiled form of the rule of the capitalist class. We urge the working class to break whatever laws stand in the way of the pursuit of their class interests, just as we know that the ruling class will overturn any law which comes into conflict with its fundamental interests, But the views of other political currents are not so consistent.
LABOUR RIGHT One of the most important examples of the thinking of the Labour left has come in the recent dispute inside the Labour Party over Clay Cross. The heroic councillors of this town have by their actions exposed all the nonsense about Labour being unable to oppose in practice: the decisions of the Tory government, Forthis reason they have come under a storm of attack. The way the left of the Labour party has dealt with the question reveals all the inadequacies of left Labourism.
The present row over Clay Cross came to a head with a letter, leaked to the press to Harold Wilson from Sir Reg Goodwin, GLC leader of the Labour party, and 23 other local government letter bitterly attacked the Labour leadership which it claimed had publicly igoored, condoned or even supported the undermining of our democratic parliamentary system of law. In this connection we are particularly concerned about the resolution carried at the last party confer eace on the recommendation of Mr Edward Short, PC, for the NEC, that upon the election of a Labour government all penalties, financial or otherwise, shall he removed retrospectively from councillons who have courageously refused to implement the Housing not carry out this pledge.
Coming at a time when Wilson was already under attack from the Tories for encouraging "law breaking" against Phase 3, this letler greatly embarrassed the Labour leadership's attempt to appear more respectable than the Tories. Wilson felt it necessary to stress in an interview he gave to the Sunt on 28 November that I do not support and will not support any action apalet the law Having by now got the bit between their teeth, the extreme right of the Labour party advanced to the attack. Stephen Haseler wrote a hard-hitting right-wing attack on the Labour lefts in the 14 December Tribune, The main points of this article were as follows: *If it is right (as the left wing argues) that Parliament ahould be defended from attacks upon it from within our own shores, Aneurin Berin pat it rather well when he said... "The House of Commons mast assert its supremacy and not allow itself to be dictated to by . does he [Michael Foot] believe that Nyc Beran was right when he said "If there is one thing we must assert it is the sovereignty of Parliament over any section of the community"
"In previous days Labour leaders had bitter arguments over all sorts of issues. They took, and still take, differing views on nationalisation, pacifism, defence, foreign policy, and so on. They lave been united though on the cardinal principle that. Lab-our should achieve its aims through the ballot box. This principle united Clement Attice and Aneurin Bevan, Hugh Gaitskell and Anthony Greenwood, and today hopefully, still unites Anthony Crosland, Reg Prentice, Judith Hart, and Michael Foot It unites them for no amall reason. They know that if the ballot-box goes, then only naked power takes its place."
LABOUR LEFT In essence what Haseler does is to echo a breaking when in opposition and expect to enforce its own laws when it becomes the government? Apart from the fact that the any law breaking, this is a rather telling question (sic| and peaceful persuit of their way of life, and Labour leadership hasn't heen encouraging for Social Democracy:
Michael Foot, replying in the 28 December Haseler. All he can say is that Occasions do arise confusion, Does Ramelson believe we should when bad laws must be resisted by means which democrats would normally condemn. The rights of conscience are not entirely subdued by the existence of universal suffrage.
This gets us nowhere. What about the rights to accept shows this is rubbish. In the First of conscience of the capitalist? Did not the generals in Chile exercise their 'rights of consor socialist govemment as they didn't in Chile been drawn from this? To act legally? On the and wouldn't in Britain. But Fool gives no guide as to what is to be done to protect the working class when the capitalist owners and the capitalist army begin to exercise their "rights of conscience.
Equally useless on this question were the views expressed by Tony Benn on a slightly different issue a few months earlier. According tions Act was not a real law but a "Tory law" to him the key thing is persuasion: "It isn't the Parliamentary tradition but the concept of persuasion that really differentiates us from soct ethes that, due to their quite different circumstances, helieve that it's got to be done by military uprising of sevolation."
Quite what protection the 'concept of per suasion' will give us against material force is left unanswered.
REAL LAWS AND TORY LAWS If the arguments of Foot and Benn fail completely, there is another approach which is now becoming favoured on the Lahour left This is a supposed distinction, as Eric Heffer puts it, between 'ordinary laws' or real laws, and "class laws". Quite what the basis of this distinction is no one can explain as all statute laws are passed through Parliament in exactly the same way, whether they be the Industria!
Relations Act or laws on dog licences. However this argument also appears greatly to appeal to the Communist Party, Bert Ramelson in his OR - ENGINEERand SURE "They [the Labour leadens] are playing the Tory gamn by failing to distinguish between law which is hased on genuine consensas and is aimed to guarantee the rights of the overwhelming majority to the onderty vicious class law."
This statement, coupled with some really odd remarks about 'natural justice which issue of Tribune, is completely unable to answer Ramelson also makes, is an example of complete obey iaw based on 'genuine consensus'? If so, every minority movement would have to start off by obeying the law.
An example which even the CP would have World War those who opposed the war and carried out propaganda against it went completecience On Foot's basis the capitalists shouldn't ly against laws which, at that time, expressed the he expected to obey laws passed by a reforming "general consensus. What conclusion should have contrary. Precisely as Lenin proposed, it was absolutely imperative to start ilegal activity. What is more, this supposed distinction between "real laws" and "class laws" leads in practice to the complete disarming of the working class. For example, for months the TUC and the CP went around declaring that the Industrial Relawhich it was permissible to violate. Of course "ordinary' laws had to he obeyed. As a result the movement was completely disarmed when the Tories, seizing on this inconsistency, use an absolutely 'genuine" law, that of Conspiracy, against the Shrewsbury defendants In the working class movement at present there are two lines of divide. The first line is between those who are prepared to struggle against Phase 3 and those who are not. Unity must be sought between all those forces prepar ed to support all the struggles against acceptance of incomes policy, but at the same time a con tinual struggle must he kept up within that united action along the secund line of divide hetween those who accept the rule of law" and •Parliamentary sovereignly and those who do not. Only in this way can the working class be fully armed against the ruling class attacksboth those we now face and those to come
----- pull-quotes -----
John Marshall CROSS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER RENTand RATES OFFICE PUBLIC HEALTH INSPLSTOR and HOUSING MANAGER