An increasing number of trade union militants are showing interest in the "Workers' Control" campaign - with the prospect that [illegible] well form the spearhead of a Labour Party opposition in the unions to increased [illegible] attacks. This belated move is to [illegible] the labour movement from the real issue [illegible] it immediately poses us, as Socialists, with the problem of what line to take which will help extend the movement beyond its present embryonic state and which will lead to a clear differentiation in the ranks of those already participating in it. These two tasks should be [illegible] complementary.
Although the "Workers' Control" campaign is capable of mobilising in the near future a sizeable [illegible] of militants on a political perspective, there is still great confusion in its ranks as to what exactly the aim of the campaign actually is and how to go about achieving it. The [illegible] is open to wide interpretations - certainly that of [illegible] Jones (sponsored by the Labour Party NEC [illegible] report to the 1968 LP Conference on the possibilities of "participation" in industry) differs from that of shop-floor stewards. [illegible] that it has attracted supporters from [illegible] labour movement [illegible] the campaign is already seen - from the various vantage points - as CENTRAL to the problems of the movement. It is also the source of the "confusion" and "haziness" about objectives which can generally be [illegible] to revolve around the blurred line still existing between the concepts of "workers' participation" and "workers' control".
As socialists, our main task should be to try and draw a sharp, DECISIVE line between these [illegible] - to open the movement up beyond the [illegible] notions still cherished by the union hierarchies (who merely pay lip-service to the original aims of their organisations under [illegible]) and [illegible] the revolutionary concepts of workers' "power". This is indeed the dividing line!
This precision of objectives [illegible] our central task [illegible] the present time because of the particularly pernicious role traditional trade union reformism can now play. It is no longer a question of a revolutionary attitude as opposed to a reformist one - which identifies "participation" with [illegible] socialism. The present political [illegible], with increasing attempts to undermine the independence of workers' [illegible] means the PROGRESSIVE nature of such reformism, as [illegible] BLACK DWARF quite rightly pointed out last year, seen in the mouths of the union hierarchy means [illegible] turns it into its opposite.
We must be quite clear about this. "Participation" - participation, that is, for the select union hierarchy to be integrated into management committees - only serves to further the subordination of the unions to the state UNDER SEEMINGLY MILITANT SLOGANS. This is, of course, why the question of "participation" - and why TRIBUNE accurately saw this as an attempt [illegible] which "workers' control" = "workers' power". [illegible] they remembered the fiasco of "participation" which resulted from the "Joint Production Committees" set up in the early war years by the Coalition Government.
With a clearer differentiation on this question within the labour movement, it can be [illegible] main element in the radicalisation of sizeable numbers of trade unionists on a political perspective. It [illegible] helps open up, by means of this differentiation, the struggle for workers' democracy inside the unions (e.g., the call for electing trade union officials) and for the independence of these organisations from the state.