(Militant International Review, No. 7, 1973, p. 2-16)
By Peter Taaffe
„There is no power in the world which could for a day resist the British working class organised as a body.“
Thus wrote Frederick Engels 92 years ago in an article dealing with the British unions. Yet there is nothing more ‚modern‘, nothing which more effectively sums up the situation in Britain today, than these lines from Engels.
In the stormy events of the past three years, over and over again the enormous latent power of the Trade Unions and Labour Movement has been confirmed. The giant of labour has been merely required to flex its muscles to overturn one plank after another in the ‚counter revolution‘ outlined by the Tories when they came to power. By comparison the retreat of Napoleon from Moscow was orderly.
This is most graphically illustrated by the short but spectacular history of the Industrial Relations Act. The very introduction of this Act was a reflection of the fact that the class balance of forces were weighted overwhelmingly in favour of the working class. The capitalists looked towards the State to „redistribute the balance of bargaining power in favour of the employers“ as the engineering bosses quaintly put it in a secret memorandum to the National Industrial Relations Court, (published in Tribune 18.5.73). Their hirelings in the Tory Party, by means of the Act, hoped they could roll back the wheel of history. They sought to limit the right to strike, to infringe on the right of solidarity action, to financially weaken the unions, to undermine the closed shop and to force the union leadership to act as open ‚labour lieutenants of capital‘, as policemen over the rank and file.
And there were many, even within the Labour Movement itself, who expected that this programme could be carried out, that British society was moving into the era of the ‚corporate state‘ of ’neo-fascism‘ etc. It was the Marxists alone who pointed out that the rights of the working class had been gained in generations of struggle and at the cost of enormous sacrifices in blood and suffering. These conquests cannot be erased by the stroke of a legislative pen even one wielded by the ‚Mother of Parliaments‘ itself. It is one thing to pass an Act, it is another thing entirely to carry it out.
Any attempt to implement the Act would meet with the furious resistance of a working class and Labour Movement far stronger and more cohesive than at any time in its history. Marxists have pointed out that one effect of the post-war economic upswing was undoubtedly to soften class relations, in the advanced capitalist countries. But the other positive side of the boom was that it enabled the working class to heal the wounds of the mass unemployment and misery of the inter-war period, to build up and strengthen the organisations of the Trade Unions. Over 10 million workers are now numbered in the ranks of the unions compared to just under 5 million in 1930. The shop stewards number a colossal quarter of a million, a tremendous increase compared to the inter-war period, when they were only established in a few industries with the best union organisation.
For the Tories to challenge head-on this power of the workers‘ organisations was a guarantee of a gigantic social explosion, which would either lead to a general strike or a retreat on the part of the bourgeoisie. And so it proved to be. The I. R Act had the opposite effect to what its authors intended.
Effects of the Act …
When the ‚cooling-off‘ procedure was used against the railwaymen it only served to harden the determination of the workers. Its use against docker’s in July last year set in motion a wave of solidarity action which would have resulted in a general strike, if the Pentonville Five had not been released. The TUC were forced to go on record for a 24 hour. general strike.
The use of black-legs like Snute in the docks and Goad in the engineering industry to undermine the principle of the closed shop and class solidarity rebounded on the capitalists. The threat of widespread retaliatory action was sufficient to force the employers to lay-off with generous terms of course, the self-styled proponents of ‚liberty‘, (i.e., for the bosses) on the shop floor.
All these events have forced the strategists of capital to reassess the Industrial Relations Act. A measure which promised to usher in an era of ’social peace‘, has bad the opposite result. While it may have cost the unions a certain amount – the AUEW has lost £770,000 in financial impositions and an extra £200,000 in forfeited income tax concessions, this is as nothing to the colossal sums lost in the biggest strike wave since 1926. At the same time it has been powerless to fundamentally curtail the rights of the working class.
Confirmation of this has recently come from the most unlikely quarter, the Commission on Industrial Relations, (C.I.R.), itself a creature of the Act.
Thus in its annual report, the C.I.R. says in relation to the closed shop.
„By the end of 1972 the only approved closed shop was that between the British Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen. Yet our enquiries indicated that the practice of the closed shop was still widespread.“
The Act had declared the closed shop not as ‚illegal‘ but as ‚void‘:
Even the hard nosed engineering capitalists, who would dearly love to eliminate the power of the unions in their industry, have understood that they would be called on to pay a high price in terms of strikes, sit-ins etc., in order to rid themselves of the ’scourge‘ of the closed shop. It is a price they are not prepared to pay at this stage. In the memorandum mentioned above, arising from secret talks with Donaldson N.I.R.C. chief (which in itself speaks volumes about the so-called ‚impartiality‘ of this body), they informed him that: „the closed shop provisions are viewed with suspicion … employers generally prefer to suspend non-union men rather than use the law.“ (our emphasis) The ineffectiveness of the Act is further highlighted by the comments of the C.I.R. on legally binding agreements. Searching for some crumb of comfort it hopefully declares:
„We did … come across some instances of legally binding agreements“, but then disconsolately adds, „In general these appeared to have been the result of oversight.“ (our emphasis).
In the face of such evidence even the most zealous defenders of the Act find it difficult to put on a bold front in its defence. One of those bourgeois commentators forced to eat his own words is Eric Jacobs, industrial correspondent of the Sunday Times.
„Those of us who thought the Act would have a useful and constructive effect on industrial relations now look a little foolish.“
It was those ideologists of capitalism like Jacobs who pressed on the Tories the need to arm themselves with all the necessary legal paraphernalia of the Act.
But the medicine they prescribed has only worsened the patients malady. They declaimed against strikes, particularly the unofficial short/small strikes of the ’60s. Sure enough the Act diminished these but at the cost of ‚larger and longer‘ official strikes, with an increase in the number of days lost rocketing from almost 7 million days in 1969, the year before the Tories came to power, to 24 million last year.
The Act was fashioned as a weapon for Big Business, to be used as a last resort. Instead, all the ’small fry‘, both the employers and those scabs like Goad, have rushed forward to explicit the Act for their own ends. This prompted the journal of Big Capital, The Times to characterise it at the time of the imprisonment of the dockers as a:- …
„disordered slot machine, which produces a succession of unforeseen results, mostly raspberry flavoured.“
The spokesmen of capitalism have called either for its complete abandonment, its shelving until a more suitable occasion arises, or such amendments as will render it completely ineffective. Meanwhile they are using their Courts to prevent the ’small fry‘ from going too far in embroiling them in a confrontation which they wish to avoid at this stage. Hence the decision of the Appeal Court against Shute and his campaign against the closed shops In the London docks. They are not prepared to risk losing the very healthy profits which loom, for the sake of Shutie’s laudable principles.
The Power of the Unions
Thus at every turn , the accumulated power of the Trade Unions is seen. Due to the restraints imposed by the leadership only a portion of this power has been brought to bear on the Government. Yet this has been sufficient to compel Heath to do a U-turn on all aspects of his programme – on ‚lame ducks‘, on ‚pruning the nationalised industries‘ etc. That the Tory Government has been allowed a temporary victory on Phase II of its wage freeze is a consequence of the restraining influence of the leadership. At each stage they have attempted to blunt the bitter hatred felt by the mass of the workers to the Tory Government. Without them, the capitalists, their Government and their State would not be able to last more than a few days.
The Trade Unions are the single most powerful force in society. Even Victor Feather by way of a warning to the Tory Government declared last year that, „no one can do anything to the unions, that the unions do not want done.“ Yet he fears, along with the rest of the T.U. leadership, the consequences of this power even more than the capitalists. No better proof of this can be furnished than the virtual sabotage of this years May Day strike. Despite the lack of a lead from the top a magnificent 3 million workers came out in the greatest May Day for 50 years. But a successful one day stoppage with a turn-out of 10 million in demonstrations and meetings would have given an enormous impetus to the workers opposition to the policies of the Government. By binding the class together, as a class, it would have demonstrated to even the politically inexperienced worker, the power of the Labour movement once it moves into action. It would have allowed the possibility of explaining to all strata of the working class the stark realities of the capitalist system and become the starting point for a campaign to force an election to bring down the Tory Government.
For these very reasons the T.U. leaders feared a successful May Day. For the whole period of the Tory Government they have acted as a gigantic brake on the movement of the working class. Nothing illustrates this more than the ill-fated attempts, one after another to seek an accommodation with the Tory Government. The latest efforts were preceded by the secret negotiations between the TUC, both Left and Right, and Heath. This at a time when the ‚generals‘ of the TUC were supposed to be co-ordinating the battle plans for May Day.
Unless the unions are won over to a policy of Marxism, of uncompromising class struggle, the process whereby the leaders seek the embrace of the State is inevitable, irrespective even of the sincerity of the present ‚left‘ union leadership. Such is the potential power of the unions that unless they are used as a lever to change society the union leadership must try to come to an agreement with the Government. The tendency for this growing together of the T.U. tops with the State machine is inbred in the whole situation. In a thousand different ways the capitalists strive through pressure on the tops of the unions, to bind the latter to the State. The recent announcement that Feather will be joining the B.B.C. as a part time director when he vacates his position at the T.U.C. in September is just one glimpse of the methods employed by the capitalists.
But try as they will, there is no possibility of the union leadership reaching any lasting agreement with the Government. The pressure of the workers through the union branches has compelled them to break off past flirtations. So too in the future. It will be the class struggle which will protrude its ugly face between the hapless suitors. The Tory offensive and the terrific resistance of the working class is not at all accidental. Its causes lie in the desperate economic plight of the British bourgeoisie, and its attempts to solve its problem at the expense of the working class.
Economic Decline
Almost daily its own press spell out in the language of facts and figures the catastrophe which faces it in the future. Although ship building is not a decisive industry for the capitalists today, it was a field where British capitalism was once pre-eminent. The decline in its power can be measured by the drop in Britains‘ share in world shipbuilding, from 50% in 1950 to 5% today. The doling out of National Assistance to the tune of £160 million has done nothing to arrest the decline. It has been eclipsed as a leading ship building power by Japan, West Germany and Sweden. The same catastrophic falling behind of its nearest rivals on the world market can be seen throughout the whole of British industry. The use of machine tools is one of the barometers of the health of the capitalist economy. Yet while 35% of machine tools in Germany are over ten years old, and 37% in Japan,fully 59% are in Britain.
Latterly the ruling class has taken refuge from these uncomfortable realities in the prophecies of its economic witch doctors who foretell of a re-birth of the British economy! This on the basis of a couple of months favourable trade figures. This is like a senile old man who dreams of recapturing his youth on the basis of one day free from illness.
The economy is undoubtedly growing by about 5%, fuelled by the deliberately inflationary measures of the government. So far as the capitalists are concerned there is a ‚boom‘ but a very shaky one. The serious capitalist economists have pointed out that it is bound to go ‚bust‘ as have all the other post-war ‚booms‘ of the British economy.
In the process of the upswing which is under way the insoluble contradictions of British capitalism will be revealed. British capitalism is increasingly beaten not only on the world market but in its own back yard. 50% of imports into Britain in 1971 were manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. The ‚boom‘ will have the effect of sucking in these exports into the home market, hence aggravating the balance of payments problem. Already capitalist economists are speculating on a deficit in the balance of payments of the order of £750-£1000 million this year.
An attempt to correct this deficit, as in similar situations, through the cutting of state expenditure on the social services, housing etc., and/or ‚consumption‘ i.e. the wages and standards of the working class, can only act to depress ‚demand‘ and will lead to a slowing down in production. The cycle of stop – go will recur again. The sunny optimism of the strategists of capital will evaporate. With increasing vehemence they will lay the responsibility for the economic collapse at the door of the Trade Unions.
The working class will in turn be forced to resume the battle as the consequences of the Tory Governments Phase 2 and 3 hits home.
Already retail prices have officially increased by 9% between March 1972 and April 1973. Inflation will be given a further twist by the measures of the Government itself. The 20% money supply increase last year, the introduction of value added tax, together with the upsurge in world commodity prices affecting food, will mean an enormous increase in the cost of living of the working class.
At the same time the capitalists are piling up enormous profits. I.C.I. as a typical example tripled its profits in the first quarter of this year to £63 million, compared to the same period last year. Together with revelations of lavish living and corruption arising from the Lonrho, Poulson and other scandals, this will fuel the workers opposition to the Governments measures.
At the present time the mood of the working class is one of watching and waiting, more so of the advanced sections like the dockers, miners, car workers, engineers etc., than the inexperienced workers who have engaged in struggle over the past period.
The advanced workers have paused because they have understood that a battle at this stage would involve an all-out struggle, not just against the employers but against the Government as well. Hence the mood of hesitancy which seems to pervade the whole of the working class. This mood has given renewed hope, if not confidence, to the bourgeoisie and has confounded those tendencies in the Labour Movement who take a superficial view of events, imagining that the movement of the working class proceeds in a straight line.
But such periods as we are passing through, – and this can only be very temporary – are inevitable in the awakening of the working class. The experiences of all revolutionary upheavals since the Russian Revolution itself showed the great upswings from Right to Left and back again which were concentrated into nine explosive months. In this case the tempo of events was enormously speeded up by the war. Trotsky explained that even the social problems such as the land question, the solution of which could have been postponed for a couple of years, was subordinate in the minds of the masses, to the war. Unless the peasants could end the war they would not be alive to enjoy the land. But there was no way of ending the slaughter except through the carrying through of the Revolution.
The Spanish Revolution on the other hand,was of a much more protracted character, unfolding as it did over the period 1931-37. This will be the form which the Revolution in Britain will take. And we are at the beginning of this process now.
British Workers Fall Behind
The upheavals of the last three years have not failed to leave their mark in the consciousness of the masses. These events have prepared them for the great battles which loom.
Once the new wave of price increases begin to bite, there will be further convulsions. The struggle will be resumed with even greater intensity. The working class has increasingly understood that the ruling class, in looking to their own solution, are attempting to reduce even further their meagre standards.
The British workers have paid dearly for the falling behind of British capitalism, In terms of wages, hours, housing and social services they are worse off than most of their Continental counterparts.
The differences between Germany and Britain for instance were highlighted in a recent ‚Times‘ article –
„Stuttgart’s standard of living is 80% above Tynesides„. (21.2.73)
The British worker employed in manufacturing industry works an average 43.6 hours. This compares to 37.5 hours in Belgium, 35.9 hours in Denmark, 42.3 hours in Ireland and 43 hours in Germany. Only the French worker with an average working week of 44.5 hours puts in longer hours.
In fact the much vaunted increase in standards of living of the British working class is based on overtime. The press, T.V. and radio never tire of picturing the British worker as insatiable for overtime, no matter how low the working week. This does not prevent the same media from carrying reports of absenteeism, or the unprecedented rise in industrial neuroses, arising from the inhuman conditions in the factories.
In fact as a TUC report has recently revealed,
„Overtime is highest amongst those earning 30p an hour and diminishes as earnings rise to £1 and hour or more. In other words only dire economic necessity forces the working class to chain itself to the factory for long hours. In terms of holidays as weil, the British workers are generally way behind their European brothers and sisters, as the following table of average paid vacations for one years work shows.
| Britain | Italian | Danes and Belgiums | Luxembourg (depending on age ) | Germany |
| 15 days | 13.5 days | 18 days | 19.5 – 26 days | 19 – 24 days. |
If National holidays are included then even the Italian worker ends up 4½ days better off:
So far as wages are concerned a recent report on the shipbuilding industry pointed out that average earnings tn the European yards in 1971 were 75% higher than in the UK. The authors of this report were exultant at what this could mean for the shipbuilding bosses.
„Providing the U.K. cost advantage persists in the future increased capital expenditure – up to European levels – should result in an overall competitive advantage.“ (in British Shipbuilding 1972).
The British bourgeoisie look towards the same happy situation as a whole. Their spokesmen in the Confederation of British Industries have spelt out in unmistakable terms, their solutions to the long term crisis facing them, and what this will now mean to the working class.
This was shown clearly in a speech by Clapham, C.B.I. President on 1st February of this year. He pointed out:-
„Our calculations show that aggregate real net trading profits in 1969, 1970 and 1971 were lower than in any year since 1948 … They are in all probability the lowest in history … the rate of return of capital for manufacturing industry on a replacement cost basis before tax, has fallen by almost two thirds, from 16.7% in 1949 to 5.7 in 1970, with a peak of 19.2% in 1950“
These figures bear out the Marxist arguments on the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. This arises from the enormous amounts invested in the post-war period, in buildings, raw materials, machinery, what Marxists call constant capital, in comparison to the amounts invested in variable capital, i.e. the labour power of the working class. The profits of the capitalists come from this variable capital which diminishes as a proportion of the total capital. Hence the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. Capitalism is able to temporarily overcome this tendency by a variety of methods, but in the final analysis the profitability of the capitalists can only be achieved by cutting the share going to the working class. They are incapable of reversing the trend – although in 1972 and into 1973 they have succeeded in arresting the decline (in 1970 not just the rate but the mass of profit fell by £500 million).
In the process they have compounded the misery of the poorest section of the working class. All the diseases of the 1930’s rickets, malnutrition etc. have begun to reappear – the British Medical Journal has estimated that between 25 and 30% of the population live in households which do not receive desirable levels of dietary intake.
The attempt to impose further sacrifices on the workers is bound to ignite an explosion. The capitalists take comfort from the present lull, but a better gauge of the masses preparedness to struggle is the increasing strike wave over the past three years. And alongside the heavy battalions of the working class, new sections have been drawn enthusiastically into the battle.
The strikes of the hospital workers, civil servants, gas workers and teachers, and previously the council workers and postmen, are a graphic reflection of the undermining of the social reserves of capitalism. Even bookies, clerks and Mayfair hairdressers have recently taken strike action. Nothing more illustrates the change in the fortunes of the British bourgeoisie than the revolt among the civil servants, teachers and even the customs officers. In the inner-war period they were the reliable props of capitalism, a ‚bulwark against social revolution‘. Instilled into them was a false sense of ’superiority‘ over the industrial working class.
Such notions lost their basis as these layers have understood that their refusal to resort to industrial action has resulted in their falling behind manual workers. The National and Local Government Officers Association (NALGO) has recently pointed out that their members have fallen behind the unskilled labourers …
“The Governments own level of £1,378 for a man with three children to be eligible for family income supplement, is more than the maximum clerical grade one.“
They have been forced to consider the use of the same weapons as the manual workers to achieve any improvement in their miserable standards. The growth in factory-like conditions for clerks has strengthened this awareness. Even the upper layers have been touched by this mood. Hence the strikes amongst the administrative, financial and professional services‘ increased by 30% last year, doubling the number of days lost compared to 1971.
The hospital workers strike in particular revealed the great capacity for struggle on the part of the most exploited and downtrodden workers once they are aroused, and move into action. They threw themselves into the fray with an elan which is the hallmark usually, of the big battalions of the working class. The votes for strike action were one indication of this. Thus in the vote amongst COHSE members, the area with the lowest majority, the South West, still had registered 73.5% in favour of strike action. The majority was 92% in Northern Ireland: The hopes of these workers were dashed by the refusal of the TUC to organise real solidarity action and the failure to call a national stoppage by their own leadership.
But the strike will have served its purpose in ‚blooding‘ these workers in industrial action. They will be turning over the lessons in their own minds and preparing for future battles. During the strike, the older, more complacent stewards who were prepared to collaborate with the management were elbowed aside and replaced by younger more determined workers. Union branches which existed only in name have been revived and continued to function after the strike was over. The process of renewal of the unions in the hospitals is under way.
This new fighting mood was reflected at the recent NUPE Conference.
The same spirit was shown at the recent Civil and Public Servants Conference. The decision to refuse to pay out the increases in pensions, although wrong, was nevertheless an indication of the bitterness which has taken hold of this section of the working class.
TUC’s „Social Contract“
This is the background against which the TUC and the Tory Government are endeavouring to establish their ’social contract‘, a marriage between labour and capital.
But the bitter opposition of the working class to the most reactionary Government in living memory is the obstacle upon which both partners will stub their toes.
The serious representatives of capitalism are not interested in mere paper deals. They fear that such is the mood amongst the working class that the TUC will be incapable of ‚delivering the goods‘, that is binding the Labour Movement hand and foot.
This is what The Times recently said in relation to Vic Feather..
„(He) was redolent with infectious good humour and open armed reasonableness, which betokens all his public utterances. But Mr Feather is the Dr. Jekyll of the TUC.“ Then looking to the working class it says …“ There is also Mr Hyde and while Dr. Jekyll is beguiling us with bland prospects of universal goodwill just around the corner, it is Mr Hyde who is determining the present and who seems to have determined the past.“ It warns the TUC that „until Dr. Jekyll can show he speaks for Mr Hyde“ no lasting agreement is possible. The engineering bosses put it less delicately …
„One requirement of this (an agreement) is that the TUC should be able to command the necessary authority among its members.“
But ‚Mr Hyde‘ remains implacably opposed to the machinations of ‚Dr. Jekyll‘. It is impossible for the TUC to get the compliance of the working class to a policy of open class collaboration.
The cosy chats will end in a barrage of mutual recriminations. The T.U. leaders will be forced to reflect in a distorted form the pressure of the masses in the Trade Unions, which is for the rupture of all relations with the Government. The workers are for a campaign for its overthrow rather than the proffering of the velvet glove by the Knight errants of the TUC.
Process of Transforming Unions Under Way
The hobnobbing of the T.U. tops with the hirelings of capital has served to confirm the mistakes of those tendencies on the fringe of the Labour Movement, which have written off the traditional organisations of the working class as completely bankrupt. This fact is re-affirmed in their eyes by the outright ‚betrayal‘ of the Right Wing of Feather, Chapple etc. and the prevarication of the Lefts such as Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon.
Lenin was very fond of repeating that the movement always pays for opportunism with a bout of ultra-leftism. The incapacity of these infantile sects to understand the viability of the official Trade Unions condemns them to sterility and to eventual extinction.
In seeking to by-pass the official organisations – and what is worse infecting some militants with the same virus – they fail to see what is taking place before their eyes. All the big strikes of the past three years have shown that pressure from below has compelled the official T.U. leaderships to put themselves at the head of the workers by calling strike action.
Even Chapple in the EETPU was forced to head, from behind it is true, the power workers strike.
In this is revealed the dual pressure on the T.U. leadership. As explained above, they can act as a brake on the movement of the masses; the Right Wing blatantly and consciously, the ‚Lefts‘ because they lack a clear class outlook and Marxist programme. But this same leadership rests on the mass base of the rank and file. It cannot ignore this base and when the pressure mounts it is forced to reflect in a distorted form the demands of the masses. They can of course only go so far. In the final analysis even the sincere Left leaders will be incapable of leading the working class to victory. They will be forced to attempt to rein in the mass movement.
But this does not alter the fact that masses will first channel their energies through the Trade Unions. If the working class was to display the tendency to by-pass their traditional organisations that would probably manifest itself first amongst the least experienced strata such as the hospital workers. Yet it is precisely the hospital workers who have revealed the opposite tendency to move into the existing union organisation and begin to refashion it to fit their needs.
The Trade Unions in Britain existed even before the French Revolution. In almost two centuries they have played an enormously progressive role in raising the material and cultural level of the working class and conquering for it those democratic rights which it enjoys today.
In the course of this struggle the unions have assumed a great authority in the eyes of the working class. That authority will not be lost until it has been demonstrated in experience to the broad masses, that the traditional organisations are no longer capable of answering any of their needs. Moreover there will have to already exist a viable alternative to which the working class can turn. The workers say to themselves that the Trade Unions are imperfect and have many faults – bureaucratism, lack of a real fighting leadership etc., but without them, things would be a lot worse. Their instinct is to transform these organisations into fighting instruments.
They are instinctively suspicious of the ‚leaders‘, without followers, who offer them the alluring prospect of a short-cut, the creation of ‚pure‘ trade unions.
And it must be admitted that their instincts are entirely healthy. King Midas, the figure from Greek mythology, possessed magical powers which allowed him to turn dross into gold. These tendencies have the Midas touch in reverse. Every ‚golden‘ opportunity which they have touched they have destroyed. Thus in the mid-50’s they counterposed to the Transport and General Workers Union, the ‚revolutionary‘ ‚Blue Union‘, (National Association of Stevedores and Dockers). This had the effect in the aftermath of the 1956 strike of hiving off some of the best elements in the Manchester, Hull and Liverpool docks into the ‚Blue‘ Union, splitting the dockers into two separate organisations and in the process allowing the ’non-unionists‘ to grow.
This policy was justified by reference to the reactionary leadership of Arthur Deakin at the head of the T.&G.W.U., the ‚impossibility‘ of ever breaking the bureaucratic strangle hold etc. Events have refuted them. The election of first Frank Cousins and then Jack Jones reflected the shift towards the Left on the part of the rank and file, which in turn was given an impulse by the new leadership. The same evolution took place in the AUEW and the Miners union, with the election of Hugh Scanlon and Lawrence Daly.
General and Municipal Workers Union
In the case of the General and Municipal Workers it ’s only three years since the role of the union leadership in the Pilkington strike was invoked as proof that the G.M.W.U. was impervious to change. It was precisely this approach which was responsible for misleading some of the best militants in the St. Helens area.
The advice given to these militants to separate themselves from the G.M.W.U. by either joining a “real‘ Union of setting up a ’special Glassworkers union‘, was responsible for allowing the possibility to exist for them to be victimised
The Militant tendency opposed this course. We pointed to changes which had been wrought in other unions and which would also take place in the G.M.W.U. at a certain stage. We pointed out that St. Helens could become the spearhead for a real transformation in the union, if the best militants remained in the union and continued the struggle. This advice went unheeded and some of the leaders of the strike have to date, tragically been kept outside the industry and the union.
Yet it was the work of these militants through the Pilkington strike which was to force the leadership of the G.M.W.U. to give unprecedented official support to a whole series of strikes which broke out soon after. This, the leadership of even Lord Cooper was forced to do as a result of movement in the ranks. From the Pilkington strike could be dated the beginning of change in the G.&M.W.U.
And recent events, particularly the last Conference of the union, has dealt a crushing blow to the false theories of the sects as applied to the official trade union movement. It revealed an unmistakeable move towards the Left on the part of the rank and file of the union. This was most evident in the unanimous acceptance of the resolution which called for the nationalisation of the monopolies under workers control and management. This is a harbinger of the big changes impending in the G.M.W.U. which will transform it from top to bottom.
Given the intensification of class struggle the same movement is bound to take place In in the EETPU at a certain stage. The continued domination by the Right Wing of Chapple is mainly the consequence of the past manoeuvres of the ‚Communist‘ Party. At the same time as they have ruthlessly suppressed any open opposition this leadership has skilfully used the fear of a return to the ‚ballot rigging‘ methods of the past. But even the cleverest of bureaucratic intrigues cannot indefinitely postpone a leftward swing in the EEPTU also.
Trade Unions – Key Question
One thing is certain:- the road to the working class passes through the Trade Unions in Britain. To use the ‚bureaucratic stranglehold‘ of the T.U. leadership as an excuse for abandoning the struggle to transform the unions is a policy of impotence dressed up in radical sounding language. The proponents of this view imagine that the struggle is a primrose path, without difficulties or obstacles. But the Right Wing officialdom only act in character when they resort to arbitrary and bureaucratic. methods. To interpret this as an indication of the impotence of the leadership, the hopelessness of working for change etc. is akin to those who would argue that the working class can never take power because of the power exercised by the capitalists through their State machine.
Marxists do not have a fetish on the issue of the Trade Unions or on any question. The Russian Revolution took place with the Mensheviks, as opponents of the Revolution, still predominating in the apparatus of the Trade Unions. Even after the Revolution the Mensheviks were still, for a short time, at the head of some of the unions. Yet the Bolsheviks had an overwhelming majority of the working class with them and dominated the soviets. The Mensheviks were able to sabotage the union elections by their control of the apparatus and hence delay for a time the reflection within the unions of the real mood of the masses.
In 1923 in Germany also the official T.U. apparatus collapsed and it was towards the shop stewards committees that the working class turned. The Revolution could have been carried through in Germany at this time on the basis of the shop committees, but for the mistakes of the C.P. leadership.
Perhaps then those who deny the importance of work through the traditional organisations are correct, that mere ‚rank and file-ism‘ and the advocacy of ‚Councils of Action‘ are capable of circumventing the unions and winning the working class?
Theoretically it cannot be entirely excluded, although unlikely, that similar developments as in Russia and Germany, could take place in Britain. But even in this unlikely event, this would in no way diminish the importance of work through the trade unions as a preparation for such an eventuality.
At the same time there are important differences in the situation in Britain today and those which obtained in Germany and Russia.
In Russia the trade unions were much weaker, and embraced a much smaller section of the working class than in Britain today. The traditions of the British working class are to move through and to transform their existing organisations.
Moreover the development of the revolution in Britain over a much more lengthy period of time, as explained above, allows the possibility of winning over the T.U.s to the programme of Marxism.
Even if one allows the possibility of a development in Britain along the lines of Germany 1923, the importance of the traditional organisations is not thereby cancelled out. On the contrary, only by combining work through the shop stewards committees and those ad-hoc organisations which spring up from time to time, with the task of seeking to move the unions in a leftward and Marxist direction is it possible to prepare for such a situation.
Councils of Action
The ‚rank and file‘ organisations of the sects – which are usually distinguished by the absence of the rank and file – are conceived as a substitute for the traditional organisations. A typical example is the entirely artificial manner in which they have attempted to recently set up ‚Councils of Action‘ , which is for them a fighting slogan of the hour.
Militant has endeavoured in the last three years to prepare those workers we can reach for a situation when ‚Councils of Action‘ will arise in Britain. (See Militant Nos. 148+153) We were the first tendency in the Labour Movement to raise the possibility of a general strike, which is implicit in the whole situation in Britain. The situation is so explosive, the relations between the classes are so tense, that a general strike could burst out even during the next period. But the most likely tendency will be for the workers to direct their efforts to the electoral plane and the return of a Labour Government.
Nevertheless a general strike is possible at some stage over the next few years and this situation will see the creation of Councils of Action.
But they will not be the phantom bodies created by the sects, but the expanding of the already existing organisations. This was the process in 1926, with the Trades Councils fulfilling the role of Councils of Action.
It is entirely false to counterpose the slogan of Councils of Action to the task of winning the workers in the trade unions. Leon Trotsky, writing 40 years ago in relation to precisely this issue wrote:
„It would be the greatest mistake to ‚play around‘ in practice with the slogan of shop councils, consoling oneself with this ‚idea‘, for the lack of real work and real influence in the trade unions. To counterpose to the existing trade unions the abstract idea of workers councils would mean setting against oneself not only the bureaucracy but also the masses, thus depriving oneself of the possibility of preparing the ground for the creation of workers councils.“
Trotsky’s arguments could be applied with equal force to the tendencies today who are incapable of understanding the viability of the unions.
For a Marxist Programme
The shock of great everts, which impend in Britain, will force the working class to move into action. The workers will pour into the unions as they have done in the past, looking for solutions to their problems. In the process of this movement the attempt of the leadership to maintain the so-called ’neutrality‘ of the unions – already undermined by the intensification of the class struggle – will completely disappear. The concentration and centralisation of capital, which has developed on a scale undreamed of, even by Marx himself, and its growing together with the State machine have forced every big struggle for reform, for wage increases etc. to take on a political character. In Britain this process has probably gone further than any other capitalist country. The hundred largest manufacturing companies have increased their share of Britain’s net output from 15% in 1909, to 38% in 1963 to about 50% in 1970 – the same trend would lead to two thirds of output being control led by these monopolies by 1980.
By a thousand threads the monopolies, the tops in the civil service, and army and the Tory Party, are bound together. More so than at any time before, the Tory Government is Big Business personified. The consequences of this are that in the course of the struggle, the idea of an alternative government, system and State power is posed to the working class. The advanced workers are already beginning to understand that no lasting progress is possible on the basis of a bankrupt British capitalism. This has already lead to a growing radicalisation in the ranks of the unions. The strategists of capitalism speak about the spectre of Revolution. Like the ghost of Banquo, no sooner do they think that they have banished it when it returns to haunt them.
The corporeal form of this revolution, so to speak, is for them the unions. Hence the constant theme of a ’state within a state‘ in their attacks on the T.U.s. The main danger threatening them they see coming from the direction of a radicalised movement, the whole tendency of which is to challenge the very basis of the system. The trade unions are in fact the embryo of this new society. This embryo can only break out of the old shell of capitalism by taking a clear political position, by adopting a Marxist programme.
The growing political pressure exerted on the Labour Party already fills the ruling class with dread for the future.
There is a marked difference in their attitude towards a future Labour Government and the stand they took in 1964 and 1966 of ‚friendly neutrality‘.
The next Labour Government will begin, where the last one left off, with the pressure from the outset for the nationalisation of not just the run-down bankrupt industries, but the profitable sections. The adoption by the N.E.C. of the Labour Party of a programme for ‚public ownership‘ of the 25 leading companies is one indication of future events. Also Anthony Wedgewood Benn’s statement in relation to renationalisation without compensation of industries denationalised by the Tories – which was enthusiastically supported by the a overwhelming majority Labour Party and trade union members – served to compound the anxieties of the bourgeoisie.
Right from the outset, the next Labour Government will be faced with radical demands by the working class and pressure from the capitalists that the brake should be applied.
Past experience has shown that they will choose the latter course. The capitalists will then use the inaction of the Labour Government to smear it as ‚Socialism‘ in the eyes of the politically backward workers and prepare the way for splitting the Parliamentary Labour Party to form a National Government.
This in turn will push the Labour Party to the Left and a mass left wing will begin to take shape headed by the ‚Left‘ Parliamentarians and T.U. Leaders.
But these leaders will be incapable of giving backbone to this mass movement. Their programme and perspective have been fundamentally the same as those of the Wilson leadership. It is true that the adoption of the demand for the nationalisation of the 25 companies was due to pressure from a section of the ‚Tribune‘ supporters on the NEC, palely reflecting the terms of the Shipley resolution passed at last year’s Labour Party Conference, which called for the nationalisation of all the monopolies under workers management and control, with minimum compensation based on need. But the old-guard ‚Tribune‘ leadership lined up with Wilson to oppose this demand.
While every thinking worker would support it as a step forward it is a measure that has no possibility of being implemented without facing the most ruthless and desperate resistance from the ruling class. The threat of civil war would be posed by the capitalists to defeat measures which made ’serious inroads‘ into the profitable sections of industry.
If the Labour Government is to be called to face such a situation why not go the whole hog and propose the complete elimination of the power of the parasites who own the 250 monopolies which control 85% of the economy?
In reality the Labour leadership, if they cannot get the decision reversed will refuse to implement the proposal. If the Tribune supporters on the N.E.C., who sincerely wish to see the victory of the working class, were serious about its adoption they would be organising a mass campaign to gain the support for this programme and the Shipley resolution passed at last years L.P. Conference. The active workers in the union branches and C.L.Ps are looking for such a bold lead.
The recent conferences of the GMWU, the AUEW, the NUM and the TGWU have all voted for sweeping measures, for nationalisation of the monopolies. This demonstrates the tremendous political effects on the workers‘ consciousness of the last three years‘ struggle. A major confrontation is coming this Autumn between the engineering bosses and three million engineering workers mobilised around a substantial wage claim.
The working class will be called in to pay a terrible price for the failure of the Labour leadership to show a way out of the crisis facing British society. The rise of the Fascist National Front with its 13% share of the vote at Uxbridge and 16% at the West Bromwich elections is a warning. The bourgeoisie, with its loss of Empire and its inglorious decay over the past half century has never been in a more exposed position. The icy blast of economic crisis will hit it with pneumonia. It will not hesitate in seeking a fascist cure for its sickness, as its counterparts in Spain, Germany and Italy pre-war.
It is not at all accidental that Whitelaw put the Trade Unions on the same plane as ‚terrorists‘ or that the Tory Party in its pamphlet ‚In Defence of Peace‘ has laid down plans for civil war against the Labour Movement in the next decade.
But before fascism will have the opportunity of using the deranged middle class to annihilate the Trade Unions and the labour movement, the working class will have the opportunity of taking power.
The most powerful lever for this social revolution will be the mighty trade unions, rearmed with a Marxist programme. The 10 million trade unionists in Britain with their families add up to about 30 million. Once set in motion they can bring to their feet, ail those workers kept permanently in the dirt by the capitalist system, the low paid, the unorganised, ruthlessly exploited workers outside the ranks of the trade unions. To accomplish this task it needs a programme which links the day-to-day demands of the working class on wages, hours, a cut in the working week etc. with the central demand for the taking over of the 300 monopolies, and the organisation of a socialist plan of production by committees of shop stewards, housewives and small businessmen. The demand of the AUEW for a £35 weekly wage for 35 hours could be implemented immediately for all on the basis of such a programme.
A society which allows millions to live in misery and squalor, while a handful of Lonrho directors or Tory Cabinet Ministers live in idle luxury and decadence will be some thing of the past.
This scheme of things is entirely possible if the trade unions and Labour Movement use their power to effect change.
The Trade Union movement in Britain which has played an enormous role in the history of the British working class is destined, under the influence of a Marxist programme, to fulfil an even greater one in the future.
Schreibe einen Kommentar