{Although this editorial was written some time ago we feel that most of the main points are still valid. Therefore we make no apology for its inclusion/
The recent apparent climb-down by the Government on the issue of antitrade uion legislation was hailed as a victory by many in the labour movement. But the question is who really won? Before going on to deal with that particular issue let us look at the events that led upto the ‘confrontation'.
The Government's White Paper projecting anti-trade union legislation signalled another stage in the breakdown of liberal society. The old ideals of & society of free institutions, personal freedom and a state carefully restricted in its powers, have been thrown over-board. Even that last redoubt ‘academic freedom' is now under attack, with demands for discipline to be imposed not only on students, but on the staff as well, e.g. L.S.E. Capitalism today is so desparate it cannot afford such luxuries, the seeds of the authoritarian state are being widely sown,by the present Labour Government. The hydraheaded monster, P.I.B., C.I.R., N.E.D.C., I.R.C. etc., has its parallel in every European country, Britain being somewhat behind in this field. Modern capitalism requires ever closer central supervision and coercion in every field if it is to surmount its present crisis of 'regime'. Everywhere the 'strong state' is emerging, it is an inexorable process independent of the good intentions - or otherwise - of the politicians.
It is particularly instructive in Britains' case that the party leading the ruling class in its attack on the workers' organisations is the one, the very one, formed to combat legal restrictions on the trade unions. The Taff Vale judgement in 1901 gave the newly formed Labour Party its biggest impetus. It is even more instructive to see in this present situation the last stand of the Bevanites - Wilson, Crossman, Greenwood, Castle et al. Can anyone seriously doubt that the new generation of Tribunites will similarly betray when they are placed in a position in which they have to take into account 'realities'? This is not to impute some personal failing to them, it is the inevitable result of theoretical pragmatism, and illustrates the real necessity of waging determined struggles against bourgeois ideology, and careful Marxist education which will put into peoples'hands the conceptual tools which will enable them to learn from experience, to comprehend the meaning of their activity and produce a 'realistic' and revolutionary perspective. ;
Whether or not the proposals in the White Paper were 'mild' or 'unenforcable' is beside the point. The trade union leaders whose 'hysteria' the bourgeois publicists complained of, undoubtedly understood that once the door was opened even slightly it would be ten times more difficult to resist further encroachments by any future Tory Government. The more cynical ruling class organs and spokesmen understood this and the role the present Government is playing. Hence the rage at the deal worked out between the TUC General Council and the Cabinet.
The White paper envisaged the incorporation of the unions into the state machine right down to the shop floor. It had the effrontery to propose that the number of shop stewards clected, whom they should represent, end what
their powers should be in the factory should be the subject of negotiations, between unions and management. This would convert them from being responsible only to their fellow workers into a body whose role and functions would be partly determined by the employers. This employers’ dream has already been put forward by the Engineering Employers and rejected out of hand as an impertinence by the unions.
If the White Paper was the main strategy of the ruling class, the confierence of the Workers' Control Campaign - attended by over 1000 militants at Sheffield at) the end of March - and, the strike of May lst have been the most. important ripostes of the working class to date. The conference grasped ss the absolute necessity to do battle with the Government and almost unanimously supported the May lst strike. At this conference the lowest level was represented by a paper presented by the Communist Party organiser Bert Ramelson, Although it was an excellent expose of the White Paper, the ideas he put forward were entirely limited to trade. union defencism. Anyone would have thought that.everything in the. garé¢en was lovely before the White Paper reared its ugly head, and all that had to be done was-maintain that position.
The fact is that the situation of British capitalism today means that the 'minimum! demand - defend trade union rights - is in the literal sense unrealistic. And the TUC-Cabinet 'compromise' demonstrates this. Most workers are hazily aware that this is so, and that is why they are tending to be swept along by ruling class propaganda about productivity deals and the need for trade union 'reform'’. It is not just cunning propaganda that the economy is in a chronic state of crisis, it really is that way. Therefore people know that it is not sufficient to denounce the capitalist solutions, but that there must be a positive alternative. It is the job of Marxists to articulate working class solutions to the problems people face and convince trade unionists that the only alternative is not selling themselves into slavery for a little more cash, but ‘that they have the ability and the right to take their destiny into their own hands. Nover was the motto 'That to defend we must attack' more true today.
The May Ist strike, despite the concentrated efforts of the mass media before and afterwards, undoubtedly marked a turning point in post-war history. Many thousands of workers struck over a political issue, The significance of this should not be underrated. Its success in many large industrial centres should give pause for thought to those who are concerned to further the struggle. Taken together the Sheffield Conference and the May lst strike es indicate the very real possibility of a working class counter-offensive. The success - other otherwise - of this grass roots movement will depend to a large extent upon the adoption of an attacking - as opposed to defensive - posture.
The fact that the Wilson Cabinet withdrew the proposed Bill at the last moment was no doubt influenced by that strike. No doubt the TUC General Council used this as a very strong argument in favour of the Bill being dropped. Insofar as the Bill has been dropped this should be regarded as a victory for the working class, for whatever it has done it has made the work of any future Tory Government more difficult. At that level the lesson should be very clear, militancy pays off. But what is the price of this victory? When one examines this aspect of the affair it becomes clear what the Government hoped to do was to substitute 'death by firing NO rac eli ee ee
squad' for that by 'hanging'. The role the TUC has gssumed under the threat of the Bill is to take over the role of policemat?right industriel ‘anarchy'. That the General Council should do this should come as no surprise, since in the in it is a right-wing body. It is when one looks at the role of the left eneral Council that some hard thinking needs to be done. In their anxiety to ditch the Bill, Jack Jones, Scanlon et al sold the pass. It is little use telling workers that the Bill has been defeated when palpibly many of the worst features are to be imposed by the TUC. Having agreed to a 'compromise' on these terms they have prepared the situation for an even more repressive Act in the future. For if they fail to deliver the goods, i.e. reduce the number of strikes, there will be a wava of propaganda unleashed that will make the recent bout of hysteria look like & parish council meeting. And let there be no mistake about it, there seems little chance of a reduction in stoppages while the employers are seeking to sorew more out of the workers. This sort of blunder arises from two weaknese sess, firstly, as we noted earlier a lack of theoretical clarity, i.e. pragmatism; secondly from a lack of real organised grass roots support, and the one follows from the other.
In the present situation it is clear that to rely upon the trade union left leadets will only lead to furthcr blunders and inevitable defeat. The present situation re-emphagises the need to develop a wide grass roots mobilisation around the demands for workers' control, especially of their own organisations; and in conjunction with this there needs to be developed a new revolutionary leadership of the working class. These two tasks are inseparable. Those who pay lip-service to the idea of workers' control but in practice do nothing to further this campaign will be exposed as dogmatists incapable of developing links with a living movement. And those who subscribe to revolutionary ideas will be dragged to the right if they persist in holding on to outdated alliances. A new working class leadership is not going to be built overnight, nor will it be able to be parachuted into position from 'red bases' ensconced in universities. But in the coming twelve months there could be laid the basis for such a leadership, if principles are adhered to now, and real struggles are initiated.