[Militant No. 489, 8th February 1980, p. 7]
By Lynn Walsh
Lord Denning’s blatant class ruling against the steel workers has provoked an explosion of anger among trade unionists.
The Tories – echoed, unfortunately, by labour and trade union leaders – are again preaching sermons about the „sanctity of the law“, the „impartiality of the judiciary“, and so on.
But the judiciary is a bastion of the capitalist class, and the law an instrument of its rule. If the law should threaten the interests of big business, they have no hesitation at all in sweeping it aside.
One good example was during the 1945-1951 Labour government when the Tories and the steel bosses openly launched a campaign to overthrow the Iron and Steel Nationalisation Act. Given all the pious exhortations now to obey the law it is worth recalling what happened.
Big business had willingly accepted the nationalisation by Labour of the railways, coal, gas, water, etc, the „cripples“ of British industry which made little profit. They preferred to have them run at the country‘ s expense, especially given the generous compensation to the former owners.
Although this showed private owners could be dispensed with, it was not socialist nationalisation giving the workers control over the economy.
The Labour government’s list of firms to be nationalised was „most moderately short,“ gloated ‚The Economist‘ (November 1945): „An avowedly socialist government with a clear parliamentary majority might well have been expected to go a few steps further.“
Most Labour Party members certainly thought so! But when the government attempted to „go a step further“ and nationalise steel, all hell was let loose. Although over-ripe for nationalisation from the point of view of efficiency, iron and steel was nevertheless a highly profitable bastion of monopoly capital.
Many industrialists favoured nationalisation because they needed a plentiful supply of cheap steel, but big business nevertheless feared that it would become the spring-board for further takeovers. „There is no point after this,“ complained the ‚Guardian‘ (30 October 1948) „at which the advance towards the extinction of private capital in British industry could be halted.“
The Tories now tell us that the decisions of the elected government must be unconditionally accepted. But that was not their attitude in 1949. In spite of Labour’s landslide victory in 1945, they unceasingly claimed that the government had „no mandate“ to nationalise steel.
The capitalist press devoted all its energies to proving that it was a sinister plot. „The introduction of the steel bill is the clearest example this side of the iron curtain of the way in which a minority can achieve its aims,“ claimed the ‚Economist ‚ (6 November 1948) – though steel nationalisation had been Labour Party policy since 1931 and had appeared in every election manifesto.
„This is not a Bill. it is a plot, a burglar’s jemmy to crack the capitalist crib,“ ranted Winston Churchill, trying to imply it was not legal.
But describing it as “ burglary“ was absurd when the shareholders were getting £1.50 for every £1 preference share, £2.30 for every £1 ordinary share, altogether £243 million compensation for only £134 million paid-up capital.
They certainly weren’t losing anything!
Tories like Selwyn Lloyd also raised the bogey of bureaucracy and totalitarianism, although the Tories knew very well, from the statement of George Strauss, Labour Minister of Supply, that it was intended „to keep intact the identity of the individual concerns. Their personnel and internal organisation will be unaffected … The morning after vesting day the only difference for them will be the ownership of the securities will have changed hands. The companies will continue as before.“
Unfortunately, the Labour leaders had no intention of introducing workers‘ control.
The Labour leaders refused to adopt a policy of socialist nationalisation, involving taking over all the key monopolies, a plan of production, and workers‘ control. Such policies would have created enormous enthusiasm for a new society capable of fulfilling the hopes aroused in 1945.
But given the limitation of the programme it adopted, the government was inevitably forced to retreat under the ruthless assault of big business.
In November 1949 the Iron and Steel Nationalisation Act became law. But the Tories and the steel bosses were far from meekly accepting the law as they now preach we should.
Forcing the government, through obstruction in the House of Lords, to postpone the actual take-over of the industry until February 1951, they adopted an organised policy of non-implementation.
George Strauss told Parliament how, when he invited the steel owners to submit the names of „experienced men who would be acceptable to their fellow industrialists“ to sit on the new controlling body, the Executive of the Iron and Steel Federation refused on the grounds that „in their opinion the government had no mandate to carry out the Iron and Steel Act.“
Apparently they, and not the electorate, decided whether Labour had a mandate!
„They warned me,“ Strauss said, „that the Corporation, deprived of such people, would be unable successfully to plan the steel industry. I was informed that every effort would be made to dissuade any important man I might approach from serving … In short, these people decided to threaten, and indeed did carry out a political strike.
As Strauss correctly, but weakly, pointed out, there was „concerted action by a number of people for the specific purpose of sabotaging an Act of Parliament“ (Hansard v.478 cols.1834-5).
„The rich rule the law“! If only the Labour leaders defended working class interests with the same ruthless determination the Tories and their allies always employ in defence of the wealth and power of the capitalist class. They forget that had workers not defied „manifestly bad law“ in the past the Labour Party, the trade unions and such democratic freedoms as we now enjoy would not exist.
It is not the law which guarantees democracy, but the organised labour movement.
The contempt that big business has for the law when it no longer serves the purpose of maintaining and screening their “freedom” to exploit, was clearly revealed by their opposition to the Steel Act. They were undoubtedly prepared to go even further if necessary.
Speaking in New York at the time, a British businessman, Mr J Gibson Jarvie, Chairman of the United Dominion Trust Ltd, said: „I believe the time will come if the socialists continue in power and continue their present line when the country will rise up against them. I believe in constitutional methods, but also I believe – and I make this statement quite deliberately – that, when the government of the country is in the hands of reckless and incompetent megalomaniacs, there may come a time when the only possible course is to rebel if the country is to be saved“ (‚New York Times‘ 15 October 1948).
In other words, the capitalist class (‚the country‘) reserves the right, if the constitutional forms of government are turned against them, to throw aside legalities and organise a revolt (a coup d’etat?) to defend its ‚freedom‘ to exploit the working class.
Obeying Tory laws in the interests of capital is no guarantee whatsoever that big business in turn will obey Labour’s laws in the interests of the workers.
This episode is further proof that the only way for Labour to defend the workers‘ interests is to fight for socialist aims, using the methods tested by the movement, relying only on the organised strength of the workers themselves.
Schreibe einen Kommentar