RANK AND FILE LABOUR SPEAKS OUT Assembly Programme Unanimously Adopted

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF LABOUR MEETS Weekly Journal of the Socialist Labour League Vol 3, No 127 Threepence Uunry in action was the keynote at the National Assembly of Labour. Meeting in St Pancras Town Hall on Sunday, November 15, over 700 delegates, observers and visitors unanimously resolved to endorse the resolution of the National Committee of the Socialist Labour League together with the inclusion of amendments from the Constructional Engineering Union Grays branch and Stanmore CND.

There were 283 delegates representing factories, building sites, docks, coal-mining, railways, peace organizations, Labour Youth Sections, Co-op parties, Co-op Women’s Guilds, colonial organizations, Labour parties and Communist Party groups. as = This remarkable gathering was summed up by MR D. G. WILLIAM, vice-president of the Ceylon Federation of Labour who brought greetings to the ‘I have listened very carefully to the speakers and I am very impressed by gathering of militant workers. [ am convinced that you have taken a great step forward today.’

The Assembly of Labour marked a big step forward from the National Industrial rank-and-file conference of last year. Present at the conference were many of those prominent trade unionists who supported last year’s gathering such as Hugh Cassidy, former works convenor at the Shell Mex site, South Bank: Hugh Barr, former Federation steward at Belvedere Power Station; and Mick Maguire, former secretary of stewards at Shell Mex. These comrades are actively engaged in the struggle and their presence was a powerful demonstration of confidence in the Socialist Labour League.

It was in the range of speakers that the real power of the conference was revealed. Boilermakers’ steward Joe Davidson, from the giant industrial concern of Babcock and Wilcox, and apprentices’ lender Joseph Waterson from the same firm were joined at the rostrum by Oliver Bates, secretary of the Manchester dining-car strike committee, John Stones, miner from Brodsworth colliery and Gerry Fitzgerald, a miner from Coventry.

Alasdair MacIntyre, lecturer in philosophy at Leeds University explained the role of intellectuals in relation to workers.

One of the highlights of the discussion was the speech by Stan Wall. well-known electrical worker in the Midlands, who impressed upon the conference the necessity for serious support for the colonial peoples in their struggles.

Dockers’ leader Peter Kerrigan outlined the position on docks and London busman Geoff Kennedy spoke on conditions in the buses.

All were united on the need to go forward from the National Assembly of Labour to apply in their areas the policy which was adopted by the Assembly.

Conference decided that delegates from the different areas should constitute themselves into committees for the preparation of local assemblies and for conducting a campaign during 1960 for a recall of the National Assembly of Labour in 12 months’ time.

Nothing like the National Assembly has been seen in Britain since the end of the war. Even the Press, hostile as always to the Socialist Labour League, could not find any scandals or revelations to rake up about the people who attended, The delegates and visitors were well and truly representative

of the British working class and that factor alone was sufficient to silence even the greatest enemy.

The most impressive feature of the Assembly was that all shades of opinion were welcome to participate in the discussion. Because of the time limitations contributions were restricted to delegates and observers such as Pat Arrowsmith, who received a special invitation to attend the Assembly.

A small number of people hostile to the Assembly, feeling that the recent Press publicity around Mr Fryer and Mr Cadogan afforded them an opportunity to make a scene which would receive wide notice from the capitalist Press, received a powerful rebuff from the delegates. Mr Cadogan, who attended the conference as a visitor, was refused the right to speak by 76 votes to 39. Afterwards the conference granted him a concession and allowed him to speak.

Delegates, some of whom had travelled hundreds of miles to the Assembly, were extremely hostile to what was an organised attempt to add grist to the mill of the capitalist Press.

Those elements who set out to disrupt the Assembly should BRIAN PEARCE GERRY HEALY BRIAN BEHAN welcomed delegates and visitors to the National Assembly of Labour on behalf of the National Committee of the Socialist Labour League.

‘The National Committee of the League is convinced that our discussion here today will mark a great step forward in the building and construction of a powerful socialist movement. We mean to solve the crisis of capitalism at the expense of the capitalists by their removal and the establishment of a socialist society.

‘This weekend we will be deciding on a different programme, a different method of struggle from past political organizations in Britain. We will discuss how best we can unite the working class in struggle. When we say that, we also say that we reject the reformist methods of solving the problems in society. We reject the advice of the capitalists and their lackeys that all we need do is collaborate with capitalism, that we can solve our problems in line with the wishes of capitalism. When people tell us that, we say that all the working class received take note of the new warning issued by the employers and the Right-wing trade union leaders immediately after the Assembly concluded.

On November 17 representatives of the building trade unions met representatives of Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons from the Sheli, South Bank site. The Financial Times of November 18 reports the proceedings as follows: ‘The Unions sought the company’s assistance in organizing labour on the site. They pointed out that there was a large amount of non-union labour working there and warned that if this was not unionized the Socialist Labour League might gain influence on the site as it did in September last year.’

Needless to say, the Socialist Labour League has always supported 100 per cent trade unionism on South Bank, and it is quite clear that the Shell Mex strike of 1958 will long be remembered in employer’s circles.

The Assembly has demonstrated that the Socialist Labour League is building up a solid base for itself amongst industrial workers and Labour Party members who want to see socialism.

BRIAN BEHAN as a result of long years of collaboration between 1920 and 1939 was unemployment, economic crisis and a world war.

‘The road to struggle for the unification of the working class is the only means by which we can finally abolish capitalism and open a whole new era for humanity.’

Brian Behan spoke of the Press campaign against the Socialist Labour League and of talk of splits in the movement.

‘The Socialist Labour League stands today more united than ever. This movement cannot be split because it is part of the objective needs of the working class to establish socialism. When the Socialist Labour League calls an Assembly of Labour it is really attempting to prepare the working class for the struggles that lie ahead.

‘We have absolute confidence in the strength of the working class in Britain. Once this working class begins to move there is no power on earth that can prevent it from building a new society.

‘This Assembly of Labour can go forward to build a unity in action that can prevent the betrayals of the past.’

GERRY HEALY, national secretary of the Socialist Labour League, moved the five-point resolution of the Assembly on behalf of the League:

‘The election of a Tory government has changed the political situation in Britain,’ he declared. ‘Unfortunately the discussion in the Labour movement is proceeding as yet without real knowledge of what that change means.

‘The election of the Tory government was another development in the struggle which the employers in this country have waged against the working class since 1956. This offensive has now been politically consolidated by the result of the general election.’

Reduce costs at expense of living standards Mr Amory, the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to a bankers’ dinner last week about the buoyancy of the British economy, but the most important part of his speech was that it would be necessary to reduce costs in order to compete on the overseas market with the rivals of British capitalism.

‘We think that this drive to reduce costs is one of the main reasons for the struggles taking place throughout industry at the present time and lies behind the efforts of the government to cut down the number of miners, of dockers and of railwaymen employed in the nationalized industries.

‘If we examine the reasons for this,’ Healy went on, ‘they all add up to one thing. That the introduction of new techniques and machines is now being arranged so that more and more work can be done by fewer and fewer people. In this way the exploitation of those at work can be so organized that what is being produced today can be got from fewer people.’

The Socialist Labour League did not say that a slump was imminent. What it did say was that the employers were out to cut costs for the export markets, therefore the character of the struggles in the next period will be determined by efforts on the part of the employers to reduce the standard of living.

Fortunately we have a working class of which the overwhelming majority are employed. ‘It is a working class that is strong in spirit. It is a working class that is prepared to resist the employers’ attack.”

Rank and file resist Gerry Healy gave us as an example the recent strike of dining car men who are not regarded as the strongest section of the trade union movement in this country. Because of their rank-and-file action, they had been able to force the leaders of their union to negotiate direct with them. This showed how unofficial action can make an impression upon the official union machine.

‘This stubborn resistance is extremely important because whilst the Tories may have one policy to reduce costs and create a pool of unemployed and whilst they have a parliamentary majority to uphold this decision, nevertheless the working class in this country are not in any way defeated and stand as a powerful body resisting these attempts on the part of the Tories.’

Gerry Healy then commented on the wave of unofficial strikes. The Socialist Labour League had been blamed for fomenting these strikes. What nonsense that was. The real cause of the strikes was the employers, who were not prepared. to part with a little of their vast profits to the workers.

Tories prepare anti-working-class legislation He poured scorn on the right-wing of the TUC, people like Sir Tom O’Brien, who condemned unofficial strikes, but who did nothing about unemployment.

‘The employers and the Press say that there must be more responsibility amongst trade unionists and fewer wildcat strikes. There are approximately half-a-million unemployed in this country. I have yet to see the newspapers going down to the Labour Exchanges complaining about the number of manhours lost by that half-a-million.

If you take the total figures for last year, three-and-a-half million working days were Jost as a result of strikes, both official and unofficial, but 125 million working days were lost because of unemployment.’

The Press, acting as the agents of the employers were trying. to create an atmosphere where the government could introduce legislation against strikes and strikers. They were always taiking about the intervention of outside political groups in strikes—but the Press itself is constantly intervening with advice and exhortation to workers.

‘Just because supporters of the League might be selling their paper around the area of the strike, we will not allow the Press to create the situation that we are responsible for the strike.’

Workers control will gain support The Socialist Labour League, he declared, felt ‘that the: struggles that are going to take place in industry will not be simply strike struggles of the type we have experienced in the past. The Socialist Labour League is not a strike-happy organization and we are not particularly interested in strikes for strikes’ sake.’

Healy condemned the Right-wing leaders who led their members into strikes without preparation, so ensuring hardship and suffering for their members. ‘We think it is highly possible you might have big unions involved in strikes and since they go into these struggles completely unprepared the workers can suffer serious defeats.’ , The League believed that the demand for workers’ control would come more and more to the forefront in the next period. In industries where the employers were unable to maintain people at work the demand would come for the nationalization of the industries under workers’ control with a drastic reduction. in compensation.

The Labour Party crisis Gerry Healy next dealt with the discussion going on inside the Labour Party and contrasted it with the discussion at the National Assembly of Labour.

“You can discuss as much as you like in. these “discussions only” meetings as to why Labour lost the election but you can’t decide on anything.’

The discussion in the Labour Party was artificial because it ignored the power of the working class.

A programme for action ‘The programme which we are presenting to you today is different from all other policies advocated by any other section of the Labour movement because each point outlined in that programme is a point that already has the support of consider-. able numbers of workers throughout the country.

‘We say that it is necessary to end the manufacture of the H-bomb. The struggle for peace is all important. We believe that the road to peace is the fight on the class front for socialism. You must make every strike a victorious strike, every struggle against the employers a successful struggle. You must support the colonial people in struggle everywhere.

‘We are opposed to class collaboration on the question of peace. We therefore believe that a socialist Britain should’ stop the manufacture of the H-bomb as part of the international struggle against imperialism as a whole.

‘The struggle for the 40-hour week is part of the struggle against the H-bomb. It can only be won in conflict with the employers. We do not exclude the fact that you might get a reduction of hours through negotiation, but if you want the 40-hour week you must be prepared to have: a real struggle as they did in France in 1936 with their great wave of sit down strikes.

“The Socialist Labour League is for the struggle for the 40-hour week. We are for all struggles to improve wages and conditions. We believe that right is entirely on the side of the. working class in this period of tremendous profits.

‘We are opposed to all rent increases and particularly those imposed by Labour Councils, such as the disgraceful situation in Birmingham. You must bring into the struggle all the forces of the working class to stop this attempt to reduce the standards of living of the people. We are proud to have in this audience representatives of tenants’ associations, including some from the St Pancras Tenants’ Association because this Assembly sees that the fight against rent increases is part of the common struggle.

“We are for the extension of nationalization to all the basic industries, particularly engineering, under workers’ contro] and with a reduction in compensation. To pay out tens of thousands of pounds in compensation to large finance corporations for further speculation in the interests of capitalism is nonsense economically.

“We do not believe that because racialist outbreaks are confined to a few areas in this country at the present time that this question is a little thing. We think the Fascist groups of tomorrow will be drawn from the racialist gangs of today. It is part of the long-term preparations of the employers to split the working class and to introduce amongst backward elements in particular, means whereby they can be divided off from the common struggle for socialism.

‘Government legislation is useless. The period in which the Nazis grew most powerful was when they were actually illegal. You cannot defeat the forces of Fascism -and reaction by legislation. It is part of the struggle for socialism.

‘We think that the working class in these areas affected by racialism should join hands with their coloured brothers and resist all attempts to attack these workers and to divide them off from the struggle of the white people in this country. The Labour movement in these areas must become an integral part of that struggle.

‘This struggle against racialism is bound up with the struggle for colonial independence. We must march hand in hand with the colonial people. Each time they weaken imperialism so they facilitate our struggle here. If we permit any kind of wedge to be driven between ourselves and the colonial people we will not get socialism in Britain.’

Gerry Healy dealt with the fight against the bans and proscriptions. Morgan Phillips was trying to prevent discussion on policy inside the Labour Party.

‘You will not be able to prevent the Labour movement from discussing when miners, dockers and engineers go into action. You will have discussion whether you have Transport House or not.

‘We ask all members of the Communist Party and all members of the Labour Party join in this campaign to end all bans and proscriptions and domination from the right-wing at the top.’

The national secretary of the Socialist Labour League concluded by saying:

‘We are extremely confident of the success of this Assembly, despite the relatively small numbers involved at the present time. This very important meeting, if it decides on the policy I have outlined to you, will go forward with a policy that meets the requirements of the working class and all those struggling for peace at the present time. It will unite them all in a common struggle for socialism.’