(Militant International Review, No. 18, Winter 1980, p. 3-11)
Peter Taaffe, editor of ‚Militant‘, looks at the current situation in Britain and points the way forward for Labour.
The 1970s was a disastrous decade for the British ruling class. In the last ten years they have seen a further decline in their position. From a second rate power British capitalism has become a third or even fourth rate power. Yet in the ’80s the British bourgeoisie may look back wistfully to the last decade as a period of economic and social “stability”.
Certainly as we go into a new decade their spokesmen have little hope that they can recapture their past glory. On the contrary in the writings and prognostications of the bourgeois economists and political commentators is to be found not a spark of optimism.
At the beginning of the ’70s the coming to power of the Heath a government gave a little confidence and strength to the bourgeoisie. They looked towards Heath being able to reverse the relationship between the classes in their favour. But this government was wrecked by the resistance of the working class.
Now as fate would have it a new decade sees a Tory government in power. Even more than Heath the new Tory prime minister, Thatcher, promises in evangelical terms a rebirth of British capitalism. And the capitalists, despite their misgivings in relation to the Tory leader herself. responded enthusiastically to the promise of a “new dawn”. They poured over £11 million into the Tory party coffers during the last year; over £3 million used directly in the general election.
But within a matter of months of the Tory Party coming to power the expectations of the ruling class, if not yet completely evaporated, have been somewhat dimmed. Thatcher has not succeeded in restoring the lost fortunes of the capitalists. But she has stirred up, in a far shorter time than the Heath government, a greater wave of protest and indignation on the part of the working class.
An unbridgeable chasm has been opened up between the classes by the measures of the government in its first six months of office.
Thatcher promised that through the policy of savage deflation – cuts in the living standards of the working class – she would restore the profitability of big business. Yet the reality today is entirely different from the picture painted by Thatcher and her acolytes.
Even the agencies of the government itself, such as the Treasury, are forced to predict a further decline in the next few years. Investment in manufacturing industry is expected to drop by 3% this year in comparison to last year, and a 7% drop is anticipated in the course of 1980. An optimistic estimate by the government itself is that the economy will decline by 2% in the next year but independent economists such as the Independent Treasury Estimates Movement estimate it could be upwards of 4%.
Moreover, this will go together with a big rise in inflation. In the long term the position of British capitalism is catastrophic. According to a confidential Treasury economic projection leaked to the press last month, „Motor vehicles production will fall by 21% in 1983, mechanical engineering by 23% and other metal goods by nearly 25%“ (29 October, Financial Times.)
Capitalist Contradictions
One sign of the decay of British capitalism and its representatives was shown in a recent article in the ‚Financial Times‘ where a writer attempted to draw consolation from the fact that German exports of machine tools were „only“ five times as large as those of the UK! He wrote: „By the standards of medium sized industrialised countries the UK can hardly be written off as a total flop.“
How the mighty have fallen! But as the ‚Economist‘ pointed out recently: „As late as the mid-1950s Britain was among the top ten richest nations in the world with an income per head about 25% higher than West Germany’s and five times as high as Japan. Now its place in the world league is somewhere in the mid 20s. Japan’s income per head is more than 50% higher.“ Not one of the serious representatives of capitalism expects the situation to be more favourable in the future.
The Tory government must be sadly ruminating on the fact that despite the lavish concessions and bribes given to big business, as the ‚Financial Times‘ pointed out, it has been rewarded with „the most precipitous industrial decline” since the end of the second world war. The strategy of Thatcher and Co. was founded on the idea that by slashing the living standards of the working class this would give the necessary resources to the capitalists to re-invest back into industry.
It is a reversion to the traditional methods of the bourgeoisie of the 1930s and the 19th century, of savage deflation in order to provide a boost to profitability.
Yet as the Marxists have pointed out many times this is bound to fail even if Thatcher is successful in slashing the living standards of the working class. Throughout the whole of the capitalist world and particularly in Britain, there is the phenomenon of what the capitalists call ‚excess capacity‘: industry is working at no more than 80% of capacity.
Moreover, with the onset of a world recession there is no incentive for capitalists to re-invest in industry at this stage. At the same time by cutting the living standards of the working class, the market is cut, which is a further disincentive to the capitalists to re-invest.
These contradictions of capitalism have completely shattered the whole strategy upon which this government is based. Added to this is the raising of the minimum lending rate to the unprecedentedly high figure of 17%. This is a further enormous disincentive to the industrialists to re-invest. At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in the presence of Tory Chancellor Howe, the Lord Mayor of London himself declared: “If foreign industrialists can borrow capital for their industry at 7% we cannot fully compete if we have to borrow money to put in new equipment at 15% or 16%.“
In other words why should the capitalists invest when the rate of profit has sunk to 3% and threatens to go lower in the next period, and out of this the banks take a massive rake-off for borrowing and the landlords take a cut. In this climate the industrial capitalists more and more switch to investment overseas, in land – not just in the urban areas but agricultural land as well – to investment in property etc. This has further undermined the already weakened industrial base of British capitalism.
In the next decade it spells doom for the capitalists in Britain. It is not just in the older more traditional industries that British capitalism is falling behind, but in the modern industries as well. Thus the introduction of industrial robots has proceeded at a very speedy rate in America and Japan.
Of the 6 to 7 thousand industrial robots in use around the world today half are in Japan and a quarter in the United States and the rest are in Europe. But Britain has a mere 60 or 70 robots in use at the present time in comparison to West Germany’s 500! The traditional industries such as steel, still retain their importance in the economy. Yet the ruthless closure of Corby, Shotton and of other steel plants has meant a colossal contraction of the industrial capacity of British capitalism.
This will leave British capitalism in the 1980s dependent on the imports of steel from its rivals. Even at this stage in certain special steels British capitalism is compelled to import enormous amounts. Thus the whole justification for the Tory strategy is already in ruins. As the ‚Economist‘ points out: „Resources are not going to move from inefficient to highly profit making activities because practically no business activity in the next two years is going to be highly profitable“ (October 20th).
This vicious spokesman of British capitalism has urged the Tory government to go even further in its attacks on the living standards of the working class. In the same issue of this journal it demands that: “Public sector employers should give nil wage rises to public servants in areas where it is desirable to persuade people to leave in droves, or ask for a transfer. [„The government should abolish the central bargaining function.“]
Its comments on the Employment Protection Act, Health and Safety legislation etc. shows the desperate straits of British capitalism: „It is no answer for apologists for British legislation to point to similar demands elsewhere in Europe. They can be afforded.“ It further adds: „The indexation of so many social security payments is a lunacy. Most private sector rents should be abolished.“ Such are the desperate straits of British capitalism that some of the spokesmen of the bourgeois have begun to think the unthinkable, by suggesting the introduction by this government of a form of import controls.
In October exports recorded were £3,577 million but imports were £3,916 million. Despite the existence of North Sea oil, a balance of payments deficit of £3,000 million is likely to be recorded in 1979, and upwards of £2,000 million deficit this year.
Britain Falls Behind
In this situation voices were raised at the recent CBI conference calling for a measure of import controls. Now Ronald Butt. writing in ‚The Times‘ (22 November) suggests in a very tentative fashion that this government should introduce import controls.
Indicating the thinking of a section of the strategists of capital, he writes: “Everyone except a few Tory backbenchers who do not like to say it too loudly has chosen to forget the old Tory association with protection from Disraeli onwards.“ In other words historically protectionism has always been a feature of Tory policy.
He goes on to complain, “At present ours is about the easiest market in the world to penetrate. Japan on the other hand makes its market as hard as possible by sacrificing commercial criteria to penetrate the markets of others. At present a large part of the world exports its unemployment to us.“
The latter part of this statement could have been lifted from the writings of many of the ‚Tribune‘ economists. Butt calls for the introduction of a form of the „temporary imports surcharge imposed by the Labour government in 1964.“ As an alternative he suggests an Import Deposit Scheme similar to that which was introduced in 1968. Moreover he is not alone in calling for these measures. Tapsell, Tory MP and one of the foremost proponents of monetarism, has also called for similar measures. On the one side they have seen the precipitous decline of British capitalism and the flooding of its home market with manufactured goods from abroad. On the other hand disguised protectionism is being introduced in practically all of the advanced capitalist countries at the present time.
Disguised import controls are in operation – in the form of job subsidies, quotas, etc. – in most. advanced capitalist countries. It is mot excluded, in fact it is probable, that the Tory government will be compelled to travel down this road as a means of attempting to stop the haemorrhage of cheap manufactured goods flooding the British home market.
The strategists of capital on the whole are hesitant to take such measures because of the fear of retaliation, and the international repercussions. Such measures would have a baleful effect on world trade. The lowering of tariff barriers during the post war period was a decisive factor which led to the world economic upswing. The capitalists are therefore hesitant to reverse this process.
But individual capitalist powers such as Britain are in such a difficult position that they will be compelled to take urgent measures. In so doing they will demonstrate in the clearest possible fashion that import controls should not be a feature of the demands and the programme of the labour movement as the Tribune tendency has consistently argued over the past five years.
The ruling class as a whole were undoubtedly enthused by the coming to power of the Thatcher government. To a much greater extent than any since the war perhaps, this government was its tool. Nevertheless even before the elections its enthusiasm was tempered by the fear of the consequences of Tory policies being implemented in a crude Thatcherite fashion.
And all their fears and doubts have been completely confirmed. As we have pointed out in the Militant and the Militant International Review, Thatcher has demonstrated her complete incapacity to understand class relations in Britain. The measures of the government are partly determined by the terrible crisis of British capitalism, but also by the stupidity and lack of touch in her dealings with the labour movement of Thatcher and her disciples. The cuts in housing, in education and the social services generally have been pushed home by her lieutenant Heseltine with a viciousness and heartlessness which has shocked even traditional Tory voters.
Many of them on modest incomes will be compelled to pay £30, £40 and even £50 a month more. This one measure alone will totally wipe out the tax concessions given by Howe in his budget in June. Last year, moreover, 2,500 families were evicted from their homes, many of them for failing to meet mortgage repayments. The Tories‘ ‚property-owning democracy‘ is turning a little sour for working class and middle class families.
At the same time the avalanche of price increases and cuts will mean drastic reductions in living standards. Labour MP Michael Meacher estimated that since the Tories have come to power the average family is over £4 a week worse off. The cumulative effects of the cuts already announced will mean a reduction in living standards for the average working class family of £9 a week.
The widespread feelings of anger were reflected in the massive protest strikes and demonstration on 28th November. It is also shown by the demand for big wage increases to compensate for the spiralling price rises. The Ford workers with a 21% increase in wages have set the ‚going rate‘, for other sections of the working class. Faced with demands for big increases in wages this Tory government will in all probability impose a wage freeze, despite its loud protestations to the contrary.
In the course of the last six months we have seen that on the industrial front the bourgeois have been given more than one bloody nose. After a twelve month epic battle ‚The Times‘ employers were forced to concede a defeat and give their workers a 45% increase in wages with 5% more to come after.
Print workers support workers at ‚The Times‘, at the beginning of the dispute.
This took ‚The Times‘ workers from the lowest to the highest paid in Fleet Street. The ITV lockout also ended with an increase of 40% wages for the workers in that industry. The engineering employers, like this government vowing never to retreat, in the face of unprecedented solidarity displayed by the engineering workers, were compelled to concede part of the demands for wage increases and a one-hour reduction in the working week by 1981.
Many workers were undoubtedly disappointed by the outcome of the engineering strike. With a more determined leadership introduction of a shorter working week would have been conceded earlier. But the idea that a 35-hour working week will be delayed until the end of the next decade is absolutely ludicrous. The strike was a partial victory. Other workers such as those at Fords have gone through the breach opened up by the engineers and secured a one-hour reduction in the working week without a strike.
Nonetheless the Duffy leadership of the AUEW were compelled to support this strike by the pressure of the rank and file in the union itself. The dispute demonstrated that despite the fact that the majority of the workers who came out in the one- and two-day strikes stood to gain very little for themselves, nevertheless when the call was made by the traditional organisations of the proletariat they responded magnificently. Some of the most determined sections of the engineering workers were the women. At the same time factories which were not unionised before became organised during the course of the strikes. If the engineering employers expect that the one-hour reduction in the working week and the 35-hour week will be delayed until the end of the decade they are in for a surprise. On the contrary, given the rise in unemployment approaching two million by next year or the year after, which the bourgeois economists themselves expect, increased pressure for an earlier introduction of the one-hour reduction and the 35-hour week will grow in the engineering and other industries.
It is only at Leyland where the capitalists have scored a major success. And even then it was only because the AUEW leadership backed away from a confrontation with Edwardes over the suspension and probable sacking of Derek Robinson. The initial response of the Leyland workers was to strike in support of the principle of shop floor organisation and the stewards‘ organisation. The Transport workers made the strike official. If the AUEW had declared the strike official, Edwardes, Lowrie and Cox would have been brought to their knees.
But the AUEW leadership capitulated in the face of Edwardes‘ blackmail. His threat to sack all strikers and risk the complete closure of the company was empty. Not even this Tory government would be prepared to accept the closure of a company which with ancillary workers would affect two million people. However, if Edwardes and the Tories had contemplated such a lunatic step this would undoubtedly have opened up the possibility of a mass occupation of the company and a serious clash between the trade union and labour movement on the one side and the capitalists and their government on the other.
However, it is extremely doubtful that this situation would have arisen. Once the unions had declared their determination to fight the sacking of Robinson, then Edwardes would have been forced to beat a retreat. Indeed on the very day when Duffy announced his ‚compromise‘ with Edwardes the latter was denying that he had ever said that either Robinson was sacked or he would resign. The battle was moving in favour of the workers when Duffy and the right wing threw the towel in.
Anti-Union Legislation
It is true that Duffy has promised to call an official strike if the AUEW finds in favour of Robinson. But it is likely that the workforce and the stewards‘ movement will remain at a low ebb for a period. Edwardes is determined to cripple the stewards‘ movement and enforce savage attacks on the workers. But even if he succeeds in the short term – and this is not entirely certain – in the long run this will stoke up tremendous resentment that will result in an explosion at Leyland. The sword of Damocles held by Edwardes over the heads of Leyland workers will not cower these workers in accepting his dictates for ever.
The measures of the government have enormously inflamed class relations. Despite the boast of Howe and of Junior Minister Rees in November last that no ‚U‘-turn is contemplated by the government the movement of class forces in Britain will compel them to carry through a ‚U‘-turn. Indeed, on the question of maternity leave and on other issues the government has been forced to do an ‚S‘-turn. Once the effects of the cuts bite home the reaction will be so intense that the government may be forced to back away. Even sections of the Tory Party itself at local level – local councillors in particular – have urged the government to modify its position.
Rumblings of discontent about the „dogmatism“ of the government have also surfaced in the capitalist press. If the government, and Thatcher in particular, remains intransigent then it is not ruled out that the possibility of a general strike could loom in Britain. It is rooted in the chronic crisis of British capitalism and the relationship of class forces which exist. The bourgeois are determined – to use the terminology of the CBI – to alter „the balance of power in industry“ in favour of their class.
The British proletariat is equally determined not to take on its shoulders the responsibility for the crisis. Such is the charged atmosphere that has developed that an explosion is possible at any time. and on any one of a number of issues. Thus, if the government pursues its anti-union legislation the TUC could be compelled to launch a campaign similar to the one against Heath’s Industrial Relations Act. Any attempt to implement such legislation, particularly on so-called secondary picketing, could precipitate an explosion. The Tory government in Australia, and particularly the state government in Queensland, have used such legislation against miners and other workers which resulted in national general strikes. Similar developments have taken place in New Zealand.
But the right-wing trade union leadership is as much concerned, if not more, than the Tory government with the possibility of such a collision. They are frantically trying to arrive at a compromise with this government as was the case with the Heath government.
But it is unlikely, if not completely ruled out that such an agreement is possible at this stage. The situation of British capitalism is such that they are compelled through the medium of Thatcher to attack the living standards and rights of the working class.
On the one side the policies of the Tory government are not determined by choice but by the objective situation in which British capitalism finds itself. On the other. the union leadership, however hesitantly and inadequately is compelled to reflect the opposition of the working class to the measures of the government.
It was only after the defeat of Heath in the miners‘ strikes of 1972 that he was compelled to open up negotiations and discussions with the TUC. But these inevitably broke down with the further movement and worsening in the position of British capitalism.
The resistance of the working class to the government’s policies resulted in the 1974 miners‘ strike and the three-day week. But the situation of British capitalism today is even worse than four years ago. The Thatcher government and its measures could compel the TUC, after a period of struggle on a local and regional level involving one-day general strikes, into calling a national general strike for 24 hours. It is not excluded that this in turn could prepare the way for an all-out general strike, notwithstanding the fear of the trade union leadership of such a development.
The only way in which the government could attempt to arrive at an agreement with the TUC is by replacing Thatcher as Prime Minister.
Such a development is probable as the speculation in the capitalist press has indicated. Already Carrington and Pymm have been spoken of as potential replacements for Thatcher in the event of this government foundering on the resistance of the working class. In the event of a general strike it would not necessarily develop on the lines of 1926. The working class in Britain today is immeasurably stronger than in 1926.
The social reserves of capitalism in the middle class, the white collar workers and students have been enormously undermined. But in modern conditions a general strike could be called off only by the granting of big concessions in the form of wage increases, reduction in hours etc., along the lines of the general strike in France in 1968. What the bourgeois are forced to concede with the left hand in the form of wage increases will be taken back with the right hand through price increases over a period of time. One thing is certain, the bourgeois in Britain is preparing for a confrontation with the proletariat.
This is indicated by the series of articles which have recently appeared in ‚The Times‘. Like a general staff of an army preparing for war the strategists of capital in these articles carefully examine the terrain on which these battles could take place, the resources and deployment of the ‚enemy‘ forces (the working class) and the most effective means to deal with these forces. One indication of the lengths to which they contemplate going is shown in the last article in this series which appeared in The Times: „The faeces in the street‘ option ought to be mentioned for the sake of completeness.
In other words the capitalists calmly discuss the breakdown of the sewerage system, with sewage coming up out of toilets as a means of breaking strikes. The conclusion which they draw from this is that the generals commanding the opposing army are their strongest card. „If you face most of the present trade union leaders with faeces in the street, in other words with a revolution they would ‚wet themselves‘.“ But the articles come to the conclusion that the bourgeois neither has the social reserves, the technical capability nor the military manpower to defeat the working class in an open confrontation.
The 1979 Ulster workers‘ strike, although conducted on a reactionary basis, underlined the powerlessness of the army in modern conditions to run the power stations. They also don’t have the capacity to run the water system. The force on which the bourgeois in the final analysis is forced to rest is the leadership of the labour and trade union movement itself. In a very striking comment, ‚The Times‘ mentions the words of Lloyd George to the trade union leaders when faced in 1919 by a strike of the Triple Alliance, the miners, the railwaymen, and transport workers: „If you carry out your threat and strike you will defeat us, but if you do so have you weighed the consequences?
„The strike will be in defiance of the government of the country, and by its very success will precipitate a constitutional crisis of the first importance, for if a force arises in the state which is stronger than the state itself then it must be ready to take on the functions of the state or withdraw, and accept the authority of the state. Gentlemen, have you considered? If you have, are you ready?“ It then approvingly quotes the words of the miners‘ leader Robert Smillie: “From that moment on we were beaten and we knew we were.“
In other words the trade unions are the strongest force in society. Included in the ranks of the trade unions in Britain today is more than 50% of the labour force who with their families constitute an overwhelming majority. But the strength of the capitalists resides in the fact that this force is not conscious of its power. Faced with the prospect of mobilising the working class to carry through the socialist transformation of society the reformist leadership of the trade union and labour movement will retreat.
One representative of the bourgeois boasted in this series: „The only game they [trade union leaders] are interested in is getting wage increases by a few ‚percentage points‘ “ (23.11.79). Yet in the conditions which now exist in Britain it will not be a question of getting increases by a few „percentage points“. On the contrary the ruling class are looking for drastic decreases in the share of the wealth produced by the labour of the working class going back to that class.
Thus Tory Minister Howell recently declared: „Success in the next few years for the western economies including our own, will be measured not by bigger growth rates and high living standards. The test will be whether societies like ours can retain present levels of well-being and security or fall back. That will be the yardstick.“ (Times, 14.11.79).
The defence of present standards, never mind increases, is bound up with the need to carry through the socialist transformation of society. This is the only conclusion which should be drawn from the speeches of Tory Ministers and an analysis of the situation of British capitalism. Unfortunately the leaders of the labour and trade union movement have the illusion that it’s possible to extract further and lasting reforms within the confines of the capitalist system.
But as the last Labour government demonstrated, in the changed situation of British capitalism, the reformists are incapable of going through with these reforms. It is the consciousness and understanding of this situation on the part of the rank and file of the labour and trade union movement which has led to the enormous transformation in the Labour Party in the past period which was reflected in the decisions of the last Labour Party Conference.
Dumbfounded, the more hysterical sections of the right wing blame the decisions on re-selection and the election manifesto at the Brighton conference on the so-called „bed-sit infiltrators“ by which they mean the supporters of the Militant. Shirley Williams has described us as „the termites, gnawing away at the foundations of the Labour Party.“
We do not apologise for one moment for Militant’s role in furthering the shift to the left that has taken place in the Labour Party in the past period. But it is not just the work of Militant within the labour movement but the change in the outlook of the mass of the workers in the Labour Parties and the unions at the present time. For the Right to suggest that a few people can parachute into a constituency to gain control demonstrates the contempt in which they hold the rank and file of the movement.
The workers in local Labour Parties are, it seems, putty to be moulded by a few individuals of short standing in the labour movement. Anyone familiar with the workings of the labour and trade union movement knows that this is impossible. Only by consistently arguing for a point of view and convincing the workers over a period of time is it possible to gain support within the labour and trade union movement.
But it was arch right winger Neville Sandelson who perhaps unwittingly gave the right’s game away. He denounced those who supported re-selection as attempting to play the role of “career assassins“. In other words what is at stake are not principles or policies so far as some sections of the right are concerned. but the position, the power and the privileges – the „career“ – of Labour MPs. Many of these people wandered into the Labour Party during the boom when it was easier to become a Labour MP than to get a similar position in the Tory or Liberal Party.
In outlook, in policy and in lifestyle they hardly differ at all from their opposite numbers on the Tory and Liberal benches in the House of Commons. The ranks of the movement are no longer prepared to tolerate the passing of radical and socialist resolutions only to fight right-wing governments doing the opposite. They are demanding that the next Labour government carries through radical and socialist policies. This is the explanation for the changes at Brighton.
The right wing are frantically mounting a counter-attack. They are looking to the next Labour Party conference to reverse the decisions carried at the last conference. In particular, they are attempting to use the Labour Party enquiry on organisation in order to carry through changes in the composition of the National Executive Committee. Together with right-wing trade union leaders such as Frank Chapple and Roy Grantham of APEX they hope that the major, change coming out of the enquiry will be the alteration of the structure of the NEC to guarantee them a permanent majority on the NEC.
It is extremely unlikely that they will be successful in their schemes. History is working against the right wing. The social and economic conditions which allowed them to dominate the Labour Party in the past are rapidly disappearing.
Therefore sections of the right wing have already floated the idea of forming some kind of ‚Centre Party‘. Roy Jenkins, as a preparation for re-entry into British politics next year has already raised this standard in his recent lecture on BBC TV.
Other right wingers such as Owen have urged caution until after next year’s Labour Party conference. But Jenkins is undoubtedly correct when he points out that no matter what the short-term outcome for the right in the next period from the long term point of view their historic role in the Labour Party is now exhausted. Therefore it is possible if they are defeated at next year’s Labour Party conference the right wing could break away and form some kind of Centre Party.
The bourgeois are already preparing for the downfall of the Tory government. „The Times” has welcomed the proposals of Jenkins for the formation of a Centre Party and has also urged the building up of the Liberal Party. They want to create a safety net for discontented Tory voters who are in „danger“ of swinging over to support an “extremist“ Labour Party. The ruling class viewed with horror the developments at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. From the so-called left of the Tory Party represented by Walker to the right, with Tory chairman Thornycroft in the vanguard all of them commented that the events of the Labour Party Conference were „a sad day for Britain“ (that is for the ruling class). The swing towards the left in the Labour Party has been taken into account by the bourgeois in their calculations.
They view with dread the prospect of the Tory government being prematurely brought down, because this could lead to the election of a left Labour government. It is for this reason amongst others that they are more likely to jettison Thatcher and replace her with a more acceptable figure, rather than face a general election. The trade union leadership also fear the prospect of a Tory government being brought down through the mass mobilisation of the working class and the labour movement.
The aroused expectations which will be brought to bear on a future Labour government would entail great difficulties for them. It is for this reason that they prevaricate, seek agreements and compromises with the employers on one side and the Tory government on the other. But the realities of the class struggle will make this impossible at this stage. The shift towards the left in the Labour Party is not at all accidental.
The growth in the support for Marxist ideas represented in the support for Militant is also not at all accidental. The Marxists have played a vital role in making conscious the experience of the advanced workers over the past four years in particular. It is for this reason that the bourgeois and their shadows in the Labour Party wish to drive the Marxists out of the labour movement.
It appears that they are preparing another witch-hunt against the Marxists. But it is impossible to separate Marxist ideas from the labour movement in Britain no matter what organisational measures are tried.
The 1970s were a disturbed period in comparison to the ’50s and the 60s. It was the decade when the ideas of “uninterrupted growth” and „social harmony“, which predominated in the labour movement, first began to founder.
It was a decade, in other words, when the labour movement began to shed the blinkers which had been placed on its eyes by the right-wing leadership of the labour and trade union movement. It was also a period when socialist and Marxist ideas began to gain ground amongst the advanced workers. But the 1980s in comparison will be a far stormier decade, a period when the tensions between the classes will be intensified. The capitalists look with trepidation and fear towards this next decade. The Marxists on the other hand go into the next ten years with confidence and hope that their programme will become that of the labour movement as a whole.
December 1979
Schreibe einen Kommentar