Socialists and the Trade Union

[p005] Socialists and the Trade Unions Brian Behan THe background to the struggles in industry today is the attempt of the employers and their Tory Govern- ment to solve the economic crisis at the expense of the working class. In particular the employers are trying: (1) To offset the fall in the rate of profit, and the effect of growing competition on a limited world market, by holding down wages; (2) To solve the balance of payments problem by cutting the purchasing power of the working class and middle class, thus reducing the home demand for consumer goods; (3) To prevent the working class from regaining in wage increases the cuts in wages caused by the Rent Act and other political decisions; and (4) To create, by means of the cuts in purchasing power and the credit squeeze, a pool of un- employment that can be used as a scab army ia future struggles. The recent financial measures, including the tempor- ury raising of Bank Rate, were aimed at improving the employers’ position on the eve of battle. They were a declaration of war on the working class. The Govern- ment was openly committed to supporting the employers and boards of nationalized industries in their rejection of wage claims. The strategy of partial concessions to avoid strikes had been changed. Even the Minister of Labour, Iain Macleod, the ‘professional conciliator’, de- clared: ‘No one welcomes strikes, but we must not be afraid of them ...It is no part of my job to seek peace at any price.! The ruling class was consciously prepar- ing for the coming show-down. It was banking on the growth of unemployment weakening the working people’s capacity for resistance. The Times wrote on September 23, 1957: The possibility is envisaged that the new economic position resulting from the Government’s drastic measures may make it possible to restore industrial discipline. It would be idle to hope that this can be achieved without a widespread struggle between employers and labour such as has not been known for a generation. This is the first and most important lesson of the dispute: the employers had a strategy and a united front industrially and politically. The employers faced a working class more powerful than ever. It had behind it seventeen years of full employment; it had not been demoralized by mass unemployment or major defeats. It had already shown in the 1956 strikes in the Midlands, on the docks, in the 1957 bus and engineering disputes and at Covent Garden that beneath the surface of the long years of relative peace since the war there lay a militancy and self-confidence which, provided the workers were given leadership, could shatter all the employers’ attempts to defeat them. Because of this the Tories decided to proceed cautiously. They sought to isolate particular sections, such as the busmen, through whom they hoped to inflict a defeat on the whole work- ing class. Speech at Felixstowe, October 4, 1957. 98 THE CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP The Right-wing trade union and Labour leaders not only had no policy of mobilizing the whole movement in support of the busmen_ but worked consciously to isolate and destroy them. For the busmen to have won a complete victory, an extension of the strike to the Underground, road haulage and oil was necessary. The Government would have been forced either to give way completely or to move troops in and face the biggest industrial stoppage since 1926. There seems no doubt that the Tories were unable and unwilling to facé such a stoppage. Out of such an extension could have come the removal of the Tory Government and the return of Labour to power. Right-wing trade union leaders did not attempt to argue against an extension of the strike on the ground that such an extension would not be successful. In their view it would be far too successful.- The rank and file of the National Union of Railway- men, despite open sabotage by their general secretary. were already beginning to act. The tragedy of the bus dispute is that despite the busmen’s heroic stand the real fruits of their efforts and sacrifices were snatched from them by a craven leadership. In the last days of the dispute the Right wing of the Trades Union Congress was quite willing to drive the busmen back under any conditions. Only the steadfastness of the rank and file and their historic vote to continue the dispute protected the busmen from widespread cuts, sackings and victim- ization. The big question for the trade union movement is: Why the retreat? Why were there no real preparations for struggle against the employers? Trade union leaders and others are fond of using the excuse of ‘rank-and-file apathy’ as a reason for their conservatism. Yet the examples of the busmen, the dockers, the Smithfield men and the Pressed Steel (Swindon) workers show that the working class is capable of putting up a tre- mendous resistance to the employers’ attacks. Sidney Greene, leader of the NUR, even admitted during the railway wage negotiations that his biggest worry was in restraining his members.3 . The conservatism of the trade union leaders is rooted in imperialism. British capitalism has always had the slogan for Labour and trade union leaders: ‘You make "em and we'll buy ‘em.’ For the conservative trade union leader there is always a job on the board of a nationalized industry. Knighthoods are plentiful on the General Council of the TUC. Moreover the salaries and expense accounts of trade union leaders provide them with living standards vastly higher than those of rank- and-file workers. The growth and expansion of British imperialism have shaped a trade union leadership suited to the interests cf the capitalist class. Reformism be- came—and still is—the dominant outlook of the trade 2 Since this article was written, this betrayal has been strik- ingly documented in the report of the General Council 10 the 1958 TUC. 3 ‘It’s not leading a strike I am worried about—it's holding the lads back’ (Daily Express, April 11, 1958).

[p006] SOCIALISTS AND TRADE UNIONS union leaders. During the post-war boom, they created many new forms of class collaboration and added them to the machine. The reformist trade union leader has a real stake in preventing any mass struggles against the employers, for such struggles would jeopardize special privileges won for himself; and if these struggles de- veloped into a struggle for socialism those privileges would be ended for ever. Thus the working class is entering battle with a leadership that does not want to fight. Under these conditions, many of the coming strikes could end in defeat. One of the main conditions for ensuring the victory of the workers is the replacement of existing trade union leaders by men and women who will consciously prepare and mobilize union members for struggle. In the long run such a leadership can be provided only by revolutionary socialists, Marxists, who are able to co-ordinate the fight on immediate issues with the political struggle for working-class power. THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY The Communist Party claims te be the Marxist alter- native to Right-wing reformism, and many militant workers inside and outside its ranks have in the past seen it as the only alternative. The attitude of the Communist Party leaders, both before and during the bus dispute, shows however that the Communist Party is not a genuine Marxist alternative. They made no attempt before the dispute to prepare the working class by pointing out the danger of betrayal by the “Right wing. On the conirary, the Communist Party helped to sow grave illusions about the willingness of the TUC to struggle. In estimating the 1957 Trades Union Congress, the Daily Worker hailed it as a victory for the unity of the progressive movement against the Tories. Yet Sir Thomas Williamson in his presidential address hud made quite clear the intention of the Right wing to collaborate with the employers in preventing any real struggle by the trade unions.4 The Daily Worker and Lubour “Monthly gave space to leading Right-wing spokesmen on the General Council to air their views. Pen portraits were given of such people as Sidney Greene which tended to foster illusions about their 4 4 greater incidence of strikes one year does not necessarily ean more industrial trouble the fellowing year. Two years 220 we had a comparatively stormy passage. with disputes in the railway, dock and newspaper industries The following year industry did almost as good a job as ever in settling its problems peacefully. It need not be otherwise next year. nor in any following year. provided all concerned honestly face their responsibilities in striving for the same aim of peace in industry. Peace in industry is not a political issue nor should it be made into one by the Government, the employers or ourselves. As a movement we renounce any challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament. If we dis- like a government... we resist the temptation to dislodge it by industrial action . .. What do I. as a trade union leader. expect from our pe sople 2 T expect them to honour agreements and to use established machinery to make new ones... We must condemn and restrain those who organize, promote and lead unofficial movements and unofficial strikes... There is an obligation on employers and trade unionists not only to accept joint consultation and nego- tiation but to do everything possible to make it work. So let us, trade unionists and employers, seek to build on what we have so far achieved in settling our problems’ (Report of Proceedings at the 89th Annual Trades Union Congress . .. 1957, pp. 77-8). militant leadership. Consequently when the bus dispute broke out the Communist Party, unprepared politically to intervene consciously in the class battles, had no alternative but to act as a passive spectator giving verbal support to the strikers. Of course, a number of rank- and-file members of the Communist Party were active and did some fine work in the dispute. (So also did individual members of the Labour Party and other organizations.) The efforts of individuals do not com- pensate for the poverty of leadership of the party as 2 party. There was no emergency campaign to mobilize. all members of the Communist Party for the extension of the dispute and for the exposure of Right-wing re- formism. On the very day of the busmen’s crucial vote on whether to stay out or go back, the Daily Worker editorial said nothing about the dispute. Not a single leaflet was issued by the Daily Worker calling for the extension of the dispute or for the busmen to remain out. A good illustration of the Communist Party leaders’ departure from Marxism is an article in the June 1958 Labour Monthly in which R. Palme Dutt puts the Com- munist Party’s views on the disputes. In a section dealing with the unions’ preparation for struggle, Dutt informs his readers that the majority of the trade union leaders are “conscientious, serious, hard-working’ men who are truly concerned with the betterment of their mem- bers’ living conditions.» Their reformist outlook he sees as a handicap, but he warns against any idea that the woods are full of conscious traitors like Jimmy Thomas. He evades the key question of how a practical struggle against reformism is to be conducted in the unions and studiously avoids any mention of the need to strengthen the rank-and-file movement to counter the weakness of the reformist leadership. Unfortunately, just after Dutt had penned these words of wisdom, the majority of the conscientious, serious trade union leaders in the General Council of the TUC stabbed the busmen in the back. Dutt’s panacea is the building of a bigger Com- munist Party. But this is merely a device for avoiding the question of how to strengthen the workers’ real struggle. What Dutt has in mind is the capture of trade unions through various manoeuvres, the principal tactic being that of working in the same manner as the Right wing itself. The Communist Party leaders’ attitude to the working-class movement, an attitude stemming from their own bureaucratic outlook, is that the working class is to have its revolution made for it and will be informed on the appropriate date. This is a funda- mental departure from Marxism. To Marxists there is no mystery about the attitude of the rank and file as opposed to that of the trade union leadership, for they have grasped the fact that there is a distinct rela- tionship between the privileged living conditions of trade union officials and their conscious betrayals of the working class. Dutt informs us that the days of the consc’ous re- formists who are truly aware of their anti-union role are over. People like J. H. Thomas, he declares, are special phenomena. But Marxists know that these people are not just stupid do-gooders who get things wrong. On the contrary, Marxists know that trade union leaders are born out of specific social and. class relationships. The soil that produced Thomas is the 5 R.P.D.. “Notes of the Month’, Labour Monthly, [vol. x], no. 6]. pp. 253-4, June 1958. 99

[p007] LABOUR REVIEW same soil that produces modern reformist leaders; they grow and flourish in it. A realistic study of the activities of the present trade union leadership shows quite con- clusively that there are plenty of budding Thomases about. Individual rank-and-file members of the Com- munist Party could give Dutt chapter and verse on the activities of these lads. And the capture of key positior at the top by individual Communist Party members is no substitute for a live rank-and-file movement ai the base. Indeed, by concentrating on such tactics instead of helping to build a conscious rank-and-fite movement the individual often becomes the prisoner of reformism and is forced to carry out reformist policies. The Communist Party cannot wage war on the re- formists because its own policy is essentially reformist —-however much it may be dressed up in Left phrases. One of the proud boasts of Labour Monthly is the number of ‘respectable’ trade union leaders who are now writing in its columns. Who really stands to gain from such unholy alliances between reformists and Stalinist ‘Marxists’? Does the Soviet working class gain? Certainly not. A trade union bureaucrat who does not turn a hair as he sells out his ‘own’ workers to the bosses will hardly be worried about the state of the Russian workers. His bleatings about peace and friend- ship are designed to cover up bankruptcy at home on issues directly concerning his own members. For ex- ample, which trade union leader will lead a campaign to convince his members not to work on rocket sites? Militants have only to fight for this idea at union con- ferences to see the turn-tail reactions of so-called ‘peace lovers’. Yet these rocket sites are aimed directly at the Russian workers. The fact that top trade union bureau- crats write smooth ‘peaceful co-existence’ articles in Labour Monthly disarms and confuses genuine working-class fighters in the Communist Party. How can a Communist Party militant lash out at a ‘peace lover’ and, moreover, a contributor to a Communist Party journal? There cannot be any real advance in Britain unless a relentless struggle is waged against Right-wing, reformist, trade union bureaucracy. To the extent that the Communist Party gives comfort and prestige to these rascals and refuses to launch a consistent campaign exposing their anti-working-class activities, it is com- promising Marxism and helping to preserve capitalism. What distinguishes a Left Labour faker from a real leader of the British working class are his actions in waging the struggle against the British capitalist class —not how smooth his words are. Once the Communist Party accepts this policy of ‘revolution’ through capturing official posts in th2 trade unions, it abandons the idea that the emancipation of the working class has to be achieved by the working class itself. So the individual communist militant repeatedly finds himself paralysed by ‘tactical’ decisions of higher party bureaucrats which undermine the genuine hard work he has been engaged in. After the collapse of the Labour Government of 1931 the Labour movement put forward the slogan: “Loya‘ty to principles rather than loyalty to leaders.’ This slogin is as true today as ever it was. Socialist organizations and journals must be judged on how they serv2 the working people in their struggle. The Marxist move- ment in Britain today must learn how to combine the widest and most thorough discussion of key politica] 100 August-September 1958 questions with unity in action. It is a regrettable fact that the leaders of the Communist Party have imposed the strictest bans and proscriptions on Marxists who attempt to develop an alternative, in an effort to prevent rank-and-file members from discussing and working with Marxists who are not in the Communist Party. For example, during the bus dispute, Communist Party leaders spent much more energy in denouncing and hindering the selling of the Strike Bulletin, produced as a supplement to The Newsletter, than they did in supporting the strikers. Members of the party were threatened with disciplinary action for writing for it or selling it. Let there be differences of opinion, but this attempt to silence a militant socialist paper, produced to help workers on strike, brackets the Communist Party leadership with the yellow capitalist Press which also viciously attacked the Strike Bulletin and the leaflets published by The Newsletter. The real basis for these bans and proscriptions is the Communist Party's abandonment of its revolutionary programme. It has deserted the basic principles of Marxism and has embodied gross revisions of Marxist ideas in its programme The British Road to Socialism. Marxists have always held the view that the working class is opposed not only by the employers-but also by a capitalist State machine—the Government, the army, the police, the judiciary. Marxists have always taught that for the working class to achieve power the capitalist State must be smashed and replaced by a workers’ State. This is the all-important revolutionary concep- tion which must determine the long-term strategy and immediate tactics of any serious working-class struggle for socialism. The Communist Party have now appar- ently come round to the view that it is entirely possible in British conditions to ‘capture’ Parliament through the ballot box and then to ‘transform’ the capitalist State machine into a workers’ State. This vulgar re- formist conception does not differ in essence from the Right-wing Fabian theory of gradual advance to socialism. It certainly bears no relation to Marxism. With the disappearance from its political programme of a working-class conception of the road to socialism, reformist methods and ideas have come to dominate the policies of the Communist Party in industry. HOW A MARXIST LEADERSHIP FUNCTIONS What are the aims of a Marxist leadership in the sphere of industrial struggle? The recent London bus strike was the first large-scale ‘official’ dispute since 1926 and it provides us with an opportunity to make a practical study of the way in which Centrist and Right-wing reformist leaders have proved themselves incapable of leading an industrial dispute in a way that can strengthen the working class and sharpen its fighting capacity. We have to examine closely and realistically the balance sheet of the bus strike, not in order to discover the honesty or dishonesty of this or that trade union leader, but rather to elucidate the question: What differences, if any, would a Marxist leadership have made to the outcome of this dispute? In terms of cash, the bus strike cost the TGWU over a million pounds. Over 50,000 workers and _ their families were reduced to living on £4 or £5 a week during the strike and this entailed very considerable sacrifices. The net result of the strike in terms of wage increases for the busmen was very meagre. The tre-

[p008] SOCIALISTS AND TRADE UNIONS mendous capacity and willingness of the working class to struggle was something that Marxists had expected to be shown in this strike; but it must be noted that this capacity and willingness to struggle were squan- dered in a hundred ways by the reformist leadership. The capitalist Press has sedulously built up in the minds of many workers a phoney picture of what 2 Marxist leadership looks like. Marxists are portrayed as wild, unpractical extremists who do not care how much the workers suffer provided that some abstract doctrine is thereby preserved. This could not be fur- ther from the truth. With or without leadership the busmen had to initiate the battle for a wage increase: what sort of leadership did they need to win one? Highly ‘practical’, ‘sober’, ‘down-to-earth’, ‘undoctrin- aire’ reformist negotiators—or a Marxist leadership basing itself on the strategy of the class war? Because Marxists understand capitalism they under- stand that in any large-scale industrial struggle, par- ticularly if it occurs when capitalism is economically weak, the workers are facing not only their ‘own’ employers, but the whole of the employing class. They know that behind the employers stands the State machine, controlling the police, the army and the courts, the radio and other propaganda media. They know whom the strikers are taking on—and that is always an advantage in any battle. Their studies of history have shown them that the employing class is composed of ruthless and dangerous people who, to achieve their ends, are prepared to starve men, women and children as they starved the miners in 1926. Armed with the science of class struggle, Marxists try to win a dispute despite all the difficulties. They are in a unique position for planning the best strategy——a stra- tegy which does maximum damage to the “bosses and minimum harin to the working class. Take for example the way in which The Newsletter discussed the impend- ing bus strike: Our first thought on this most crucial May Day since 1926. when the miners faced rapacious bosses and their State machine, must be for the London busmen, now beginning a struggle against no less rapacious bosses and a State machine no less determined to divide and defeat the work- ing class. Both sides know that the stakes for which they are fighting are higher than the immediate issue suggests. Behind Elliot stands Macmillan. who is determined to give the busmen a thrashing. thereby restoring Tory morale, discouraging other sections from pressing their claims and weakening the power of trade unionism. Macmillan will fight this strike tooth and nail as a political struggle. and the busmen must meet this challenge. Alone they might well be defeated: they must not stand alone. The active support of tube men, tanker drivers, portworkers and railwaymen is essential. Tf the busmen go down the rest will go down too, and the Tory offensive will sweep on relentlessly. Strong links must be forged in the shape of joint rank-and-file committees that can organize the necessary solidarity action. From the very first moment the busmen must wage an aggressive and energetic struggle against any form of scabbing and any sign of faltering or betrayal on the part of their leaders The businen’s strike is the responsibility of the entire working-class movement, including the Labour Party. Every effort should be made to extend the strike to other transport workers in the London area. Especially is it vital, by re ducing to a minimum the flow of petrol into London, to thwart the Government's plans for mobilizing private cars and military vehicles to break the strike. We salute the busmen. pledge the fullest backing of our paper and its supporters to their struggle, and call on the entire working class to rally round the strikers.® In the course of the strike itself The Newsletter argued each week in favour of extending it: industrially by involving the tube men and the dockers, and polli- tically by mobilizing the local Labour Parties. The Newletter denounced the pseudo-Left line advocated as a substitute for spreading the strike and expressed in the phrase: ‘The busmen are prepared to stay out till Christmas.’ Marxist militants fought for spreading jine strike to other sections of transport and to other industries. To ask men to stay on strike, isolated and without any real hope of final victory, was dangerous adventurism which could only weaken the working class as a whole and give golden propaganda oppor- tunities to a ruling class now facing demands from other sections of the workers. The policy advocated by The Newsletter of mobilizing the whole working class, a policy based on a Marxist analysis of events, would have resulted, had it been anopiied, in a short, sharp dispute. The busmen would have won a clear one hundred ner cent. victory. The sacrifices would have been less and they would not have been frittered away. A Marxist leadership, because of its political outlook, is a sober leadership that proceeds from the real interests of the working class, and consequently it is a practical leadership producing practical results. Strike leaders who are reformist gradualists or Centrist waverers, because of their unsound political thinking often advocate extremely adventurous and dangerous courses. It is they who are ‘unpractical’, The supporters of The Newsletter tried to help the bus strikers by selling up to 20,000 copies a week of the Strike Bulletin. This paper was a landmark. The greater part of each issue was written by strikers. It tried to organize financial help and solidarity action for the busmen. Many mass meetings were held under the auspices of the Strike Bulletin and much support was gained for the busmen. Leaflets were produced both for busmen and Underground workers in which the industrial and political issues were clearly stated. On the day the bus delegates met to discuss a return to work The Newsletter produced thousands of leaflets with the heading: ‘Stand Firm for the 10s. 6d.!’ The Strike Bulletin made no secret of the fact that it stood for the overthrow of the Tory Government and its re- placement by a socialist Labour government. The aims of the paper were quite simple: to provide a link be- tween all sections in dispute and to show the connexion between the immediate struggles of the working class and their long-term political aims. An examination of these limited successes shows that it is entirely possible for Marxists to intervene and play their part without arousing hostility from the workers. Indeed by intervening in a correct manner, Marxists win respect. This is possible because there exists a real basis for the creation of a genuine work- ing-class leadership. One of the strongest barriers against sell-outs is the arming of the working class with a conscious outlook. ‘A programme of minimum demands must be accom- panied by preparations for action to achieve these demands. The working class, so armed and prepared, will be able to judge policies and leaders effectively. 6 The Newsletter, vol. ii. no. S51, p. 131, May 3, 1958. 101

[p009] LABOUR REVIEW Marxists have confidence in the working class—not blind, mystical faith, but confidence based on an under- standing of the working class, of its problems and of what must be done to solve these problems. The great experience of the bus strike was that the busmen them- selves took the decision about whether or not to con- tinue the strike—to the consternation of those trade union leaders who revel in tirades about the ‘apathy’ of their membership. The busmen, whose attendance at normal trade union branch meetings is neither better nor worse than that of other sections, decided to stand firm. Marxists are in favour of consultation with the rank and-file both before and during a dispute. The extent to which any struggle is successful is deter- mined by their understanding of what they are fight- ing for and of the forces ranged against them. SOCIALISM THE ONLY SOLUTION It is clear that the deeper issues in the strikes have not been settled one way or the other. The original intention of the employers to isolate and destroy the busmen has not succeeded. The Government’s aim of imposing a complete wage freeze has had to be aban- doned in favour of wage increases of about 3 per cent. with strings attached wherever possible. Nevertheless the employers have not shelved their original plan for lower wages, harder work and unemployment. The state of the economy forces them to prepare for a renewed offensive against the working class. Capitalism has devised no new solution to problems that have affected the British working class for generations. The aim of the ruling class is still the same as it was in the thirties and before—to solve the economic crisis, always inherent in the system of private ownership for profit, by measures that lead to the impoverishment of the masses of the people. In this age of great new technical advances such as automation and atomic energy, to speak of hunger and harder work would be laughabie. But this is just the road that capitalism is bent on taking. The Marxist solution is the establishment of a socialist society, whose main concern will be to use all the resources of nature and the technical achievements of modern science to benefit not a tiny handful, but the whole of society. Right-wing reformism has no solution to the ills of capitalism. Reformists are openly against any develop- ment of the class struggle to win either immediate industrial demands or long-term political aims. They want power at the next election in order to operate as a safe alternative to the Tories—i.e., power to carry out capitalist policies. The Right wing in the Labour and trade union movement is already throwing out hints about the necessity for ‘sacrifices’ by the working class, including the possibility of a wage freeze. But the workers have experienced reformist policies of collaboration with capitalism to solve the economic difficulties of the ‘nation’. This was the road reformism took after the General Strike. Mondism, the class colla- boration doctrine of the time, led to the Labour Gov- ernment of Ramsay MacDonald, which was even pre- pared to cut the dole in order to stabilize the ‘nation’s economy’. To take this path again would be disastrous. Recent experience of the American working class .. confirms that where leaders are allowed to pursue re- formist policies the workers pay'a heavy price. During the boom reformist leaders like Meany and Reuther 102 August-September 1958 proclaimed that collaboration with capitalism was necessary and that the working class must involve itself still further in practices designed to strengthen this workers’ paradise. They decried revolutionary ideas, declaring that Marxism had been buried under an avalanche of high living standards. Today the trium- phant co-partnership ot Capital and Labour in_ the United States has ended with five million American workers on the bread line. The lesson of the recent strikes in Britain has been that all real power to halt war, prevent unemployment and build socialism rests with the working class. The lesson of British and American working-class history is that the reformist leadership of the trade unions and Labour Party will resist to the bitter end the use by the working class of that great power. A revolutionary socialist leadership, whose strategy is full use by the working class of its industrial power, not only to win immediate economic gains, but also to overthow capitalism—only with such a leadership can the work- ing class effectively combat the employers’ attacks. Such a leadership can be constructed only by explaining clearly and patiently to the workers the employers strategy, and by showing what practical steps can be taken to prevent their carrying it out. The central task in the struggle for socialism is that of putting clearly to the working class the prospect of united struggle now to defend conditions. In the course of large-scale indusirial disputes the opportunities of winning tens of thousands of workers for revolutionary policies are immense. In a strike in a nationalized in- dustry, for example, it becomes obvious to many workers that to end compensation, introduce work2rs’ control and extend socialist nationalization is the only long-term answer. In fighting for wage increases it is easier to explain why vast war expenditure should be ended and resources used for things we really need. To struggle against unemployment is also to point out the degeneracy of a system that condemns a skilled worker to idleness and want. FUTURE STRUGGLES IN INDUSTRY The employers know that even with the help of the Right wing it is not yet possible to launch an all-round attack on the trade unions. They have accordingiy decided to proceed section by section. Despite all the Tory denials that they are making war on the workers, the pattern is clear. To defeat this offensive united action by the whole trade union movement is needed. Trade union branches and bodies of workers must help their brothers who are engaged in a fight. Solidarity action by the whole working class, whenever one sec- tion of it is bearing the brunt of the employers’ attack, is imperative. Financial and moral support are not enough. Whenever the dockers are involved in struggle. for instance, the whole of the TGWU must be drawn in to help them. A stoppage in road transport. oil and meat could thwart the employers’ plans. If troops are used the working class should reply with a total with- drawal of labour. Solidarity rank-and-file committees to organize inter- union support along these lines are vitally necessary. Leaders of rank-and-file committees must be protected from victimization. UNEMPLOYMENT The employers are counting on the steady growth of -- unemployment to weaken the resistance of those in work.

[p010] SOCIALISTS AND TRADE UNIONS They estimate that the dole will act as a spur to trans- form unemployed workers into blacklegs. The creation of a reserve of unemployed means an end to those gains won because of scarcity of labour. It means that conflicts between Capital and Labour will be sharper, since any advances made in the future will have to depend entirely on the strength of labour at a time when labour is in excess of capitalist requirements. Bound up with the growth of unemployment is the introduction into industry of new techniques of pro- duction, particularly automation. Although the intro- duction of automation is gradual and piecemeal, it can have a great effect in certain industries. particularly engineering. Motor car workers are once again on short time or totally unemployed: ‘A Ministry of Labour spckesman at Luton said that some of the 600 workers to be dismissed this month by Vauxhall Motors might be facing a period of unemployment. He said there were already about 400 unemployed in the town.’7 Any sackings due to ‘economies’, automation or in- deed any reason must be resisted. If the employers or Right wing claim that this is impracticable and cannot be done. then surely our reply is: ‘Get out and let us have a try at keeping ourselves.’ Many specious arguments are now being advanced to clear the path to unemployment. E. J. Hill, in the debate on redundancy at the recent conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. said: “This is a political issue. It is not an industrial issue. We ought to force this on to the floor of the House of Commons.* The Amalgamated Engineering Union withdrew their resolution calling upon the em- plovers to maintain workers in employment until alternative work was found. in favour of a gutless com- promise, the essence of which is contained in the last paragraph: If. in spite of all efforts, some redundancy is unavoidable. this annual meeting urges the executive council. district committees. shop stewards and members to take every prac- tical step to make the best possible arrangements to ensure that the minimum of hardship ts experienced by our mem- bers." The acceptance of unemployment without using the industrial power of the working class is inherent in this resolution. Yet the Daily Worker of August 14 carried a headline proclaiming “Engineers to Fight Sackings’. It is worth noting that this ‘compromise’ resolution which means nothing was moved by Claude Berridge, a lead- ing Stalinist. It may be argued that the Right wing was preventing the adoption of such a resolution. This is true: but when no socialist alternative is presented the 7 Daily Telegraph, August 14, 1958. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. Left and the Right unite to do nothing. Then it is a task for a detective armed with a magnifying glass to distinguish Left from Right. A national stoppage against redundancy would force the employers either to retreat or get out and make way for a government which would maintain full em- ployment. The rank and file understand that the time to fight unemployment is now, when the workers are still in the factories. THE LABOUR PARTY One of the weaknesses of the bus and meat strikes was that there was no joint action by the leaders of the trade union and those of the Labour Party, despite the fact that in every dispute the Tories as a govern- ment intervene quite actively by giving policy direc- tions to both private and State-owned industry. The fact that Labour’s parliamentary Opposition did little or nothing in the strikes strengthened the employers and disheartened those upon whom the Labour leader- ship relies for cash and support, the organized industrial workers. We expect this attitude from the Right wing, but unfortunately there was no evidence in the recent strikes of any attempt by the Left in Parliament to Organize support for the strikers. This can and must be changed. A good feature of the strikes was the fact that a number of local Labour Parties and Trades Councils gave support to strikers, not only morally and financially, but also by offering the use of Labour Party rooms as strike headquarters and by duplicating leaflets and bulletins for the strikers. In the coming struggles there will be big opportuni- ties for the Left in the Labour Party to intervene more actively to bring in the support of the political wing of the movement. There can be no ‘victory for socialism’ if decisive sections of the working class are defeated industrially. The unity of the Left in the Labour Parties with the Left in the trade unions in common action can provide a real alternative to the Right wing of the Labour Party and trade unions. * * * These ideas are a contribution to discussion of the immense problems that face all who are for socialism and against capitalism. Discussion is needed among the workers in the pits, on building sites and in factories. It will be an excellent thing for delegates from all sections of the working class to meet and work out a practical programme to guide working-class struggles at the rank-and-file conference called by the editorial board of The Newsletter on November 16. 103. .

[p011] LABOUR REVIEW August-September 195%