Socialists and the Labour government

Danced workers.' mankind.

Since the First World War, the first priority in all capitalist countries nas been to break the grip of the reformist (Labour) and then the Stalinist leaderships over the working class.

In Britain the workers, having formed their own parliamentary party (Labour Party) through the trade unions, have continued to see a Labour government as the only political alternative to the direct rule of the employers through the Tory Party.

Led struggle

For this reason, as long ago as 1920, Lenin and • Trotsky led a struggle in the international Marxist movement to convince the founders of the British Communist Party that they should work for the return of a Labour government.

The purpose of this was solely to break the working class from the Labour leadership (Henderson, Snowden and others at that time) through their own experience of the capitalist policies of such a government.

Some people who today call themselves Marxists and Communists are using these writings of Lenin and Trotsky, particularly Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism: An infantile disorder', , to excuse support for the Wilson government, on the grounds that it is 'premature' or 'adventurist' to openly struggle against its capitalist policies.

In fact, of course, they are afraid of disturbing their friendly relations with the so-called 'left' in the Labour Party, who are bemused by the old arguments of 'loyalty to Labour'.

Even now, when the Labour Party conference has endorsed a full imperialist programme for the Wilson government—immigration restrictions, imperialist war in Vietnain, state action against the trade unions etc.-the so-called Marxists are acting in support of the Labour government.

They refuse to quarrel with those loud-mouthed Labour MPs who always stop at a certain point in their criticism and say: 'But we must not do anything to harm 'our' Labour majority'.

A fraud The Labour government is a fraud on the working class. Financed by the trade union subscriptions of millions of ordinary workers, elected by them at the polls on the promise of a lower cost of living cheap housing, the nationalization of steel, increased benefits, these Labour Ministers are in fact the close associates and the most obedient servants of the capitalist class, in Britain and internationally.

Take one example. By threatening mass unemployment, George Brown imposed a settlement upon the workers of the recently modernised Fairfield shipyard in Glasgow.

State subsidy was brought in to keep guaranteed funds provided by individuals roped in by Brown.

Certain trade union funds were brought in for good measure.

Brown's association with the live in an epoch of the universal the French working class. Conover and over again the fundamental of Marxist policies audiences June 10, 1936) kings of private enterprise was known before: even while serving in the Labour 'opposition' , he was employed as industrial adviser to the 'Daily Mirror'.

Even though Brown was a Transport and General Workers' Union MP, the 'Daily Mirror" conducted a fight against London busmen, T&GWU members, when they were on official strike.

Fairfield's is the shape of things to come, as the Labour leaders and their friends among the employers would like to see it.

Fraser told the Fairfield's men nat his money was put in on condition that the union rule book was thrown out.

Big capital, supported by the State and using the trade union leaders to discipline the working class-this is the pattern of development towards the corporate state which asserts itself in every capitalist economy.

Collaborators

Those who do not fight against the Labour government as a capitalist government are collaborating with the capitalists in their plans.

Wilson's government is the chosen instrument to discipline the working class. In the inevitable struggle of the workers against this government, the alternative leadership will be built.

At the end of 1965, Brown finally told the TUC leaders what the penalties would be under his proposed new law on wages and prices.

He had already, at the September TUC, told the General Council that under pressure from the international bankers, legislation, which would mean imprisonment for trade unionists who did not comply with governmentregulated wage levels, was on the way.

There can be no fight for socialism whatsoever, no fight against the employing class or any of its policies anywhere, unless the fight against these new powers for the capitalist state is waged relentlessly throughout the working-class movement tories.

All the Communist Party's talk about 'broad left unity' with people critical of various aspects of Labour policy is meaningless, a fraud, if the key development is ignored.

It is not a question of uniting a dispersed and confused opposition on different points, but of mobilising the working class on the main issues, and in this fight building a new leadership, a revolutionary party of the working class.

First blow The initiative of the Lambeth Trades Council in calling a lobby of parliament by trade unionists on January 26, 1966, against the proposed legislation on wages and trade unions, provides the opportunity of striking the first major blow against the Labour government's capitalist policies in 1966.

When Brown introduced his (above) had told the TUC at its September Congress (see below general secretary Woodcock with General Council members) of plans for plans for anti-trade union legislation. "incomes policy, The Newsletter warned that the Labour leadership's abandonment of any socialist policies would mean that the incomes policy was an attack on the working class.

Socialists must fight against the capitalist policies of Wilson, and bring this policy fight into relation with the struggles of workers for wages and jobs.

Therefore, a turn to the trade unions was the primary necessity.

We said that the 'Declaration of Intent: by employers, government and trade union leaders meant nothing so far as the workers were concerned.

The so-called 'left' were talking about 'incomes policy with workers' control' (1)—and at the same time refusing to fight the anti-worker leadership of Wilson!

'Left' trade union leaders were foxing their members by saying they were for an incomes policy 'on condition' that dividends and profits were sacrificed equally with wages. It was all a fraud.

In the first year of the 'incomes policy, the workers have pushed up laser by 8 percent. At the same time, the old capitalist economy of Britain has continued to stagnate-production has gone up only 2 per cent at the most.

Engineers, in defiance of the 'package deal, and dockers, way out in front of the union leaders, have begun to impose their own holiday and shift-working conditions, over and above the bureaucratic 'agreements' of the bosses and the officials.

In other words, the basic strength of the working class has asserted itself. It is beginning to push aside the 'responsible' leadership.

'Saviour"

When the US and international business fraternity gave massive financial support to Wilson and Brown, it was in the hope that their 'Labour' government would be able to save the pound (and indirectly the dollar) through disciplining the working class.

The legislation now proposed -involving fines of up to £500is the latest attempt by Wilson, Gunter and Brown to demonstrate their 'credit-worthiness' to international finance capital.

The bakery workers and others have discovered in action the capitalist role of the government.

The objective conditions are highly favourable for Marxists to build a revolutionary party, in and through the struggles of the working class. This obviously can only be done through a relentless struggle against the Labour government.

Among the political tendencies in Britain, only the Trotskyists in the Socialist Labour League and the Young Socialists have campaigned consistently on working-class issues, insisting all along that this must be accompanied by a fight against the leadership of the Labour Party.

A Labour government is introducing anti-trade union legislation for use by the capitalist state, for use by any government holding state office.

They are the chosen servants of monopoly capitalism for the job; they are the enemy of the working class.

It was for this reason that the Socialist Labour League and the Young Socialists received the full brunt of the witch-hunt inside the Labour Party, including the proscription of The Newsletter and "Keep Left'.

Policies

In the period before the General Election of 1964 we called for a Labour victory, but we also fought for (and won inside the Young Socialists) socialist policies of nationalization; we said that Wilson would betray, even when the majority of Labour supporters had a certain amount of confidence in him.

Only a force trained in struggle for socialist policies at that time could be relied on to lead the struggle against the coming betrayals.

And, sure enough, all those who told us then that we were 'adventurist' and 'too far left' are now unable to fight on the question of legislation.

The 'Daily Worker' could never protest against the ban on 'Keep Left' or The Newsletter.

Today, the Communist Party will not support the Lambeth lobby, even though hundreds of rank-and-file members in the unions are supporting the call for the lobby, and others, so-called Marxists in the Labour Party, around the papers 'Militant' and 'The Week' ', who stood aside when we were witch-hunted, are now so busy keeping their place in the Labour Party that they actually lead the opposition to the lobby in some areas (e.g. Liverpool Trades Council, Leeds University Labour Club).

As we have already pointed out, this betrayal is covered up, very often, with quotations from Lenin's book 'Left Wing Communism: An infantile disorder'.

For a generation, Communist Party members have been vaguely referred to this book as an answer to the policies of Trotskyism. It is, of course, nothing of the kind.

Dangerous 'leftism It was written in 1920, when Trotsky was Lenin's closest collaborator. It was written as part of a campaign within the Communist International, conducted above all by Lenin and Trotsky together, against the dangerous 'leftism' of some elements in the new International, including some of the founders of the British Communist Party, on the eve of its establishment.

It is worthwhile examining the leading ideas of Lenin's book, in order to clarity what he actually said about Labour governments and the Labour Party in Britain.

This will in fact help us to see more clearly the tasks of building the revolutionary party today, since Lenin's aim in this book was to draw for the workers of other countries the lessons in theory, strategy and tactics of the experience of the Russian Bolsheviks. This is the purpose of our next articles. Asia and Africa.

that will lead to Smith's defeat. Africa.

Britain and Africa.

and seek support from the urban poor.

be brought about.

Of course this does not mean that support should not be given to nationalist leaders fighting for political independence in Africa and Asia.

But the type of support should be a very critical one like 'a rope supporting a hanging-man' and not the uncritical and unconditional support the Stalinist RHODESIAN CRISIS class