The present political situation in Britain is dominated by the fight against the Tory anti-union legislation. The outcome of this struggle will be of enormous importance in determining the evolution of the anti-capitalist struggle in Britain. A defeat for the trade unions could well demoralise workers for a whole period; a victory, on the other hand, could open up a period of political struggle and revitalise the entire labour movement. The policies pursued in this struggle are, therefore, not of mere academic interest. Any mistakes made could have extremely serious repercussions.
The experience of the struggle against the Labour Government's In Place of Strife proposals demolish all spontaneist arguments. Because this movement was restricted to defensive formulations it virtually disappeared once the Government appeared to be climbing down (however, we recognise the role played by this struggle in stimulating subsequent wages militancy).
The shock wave which went through the Left when the viciousness of the Tory proposals was revealed, induced a powerful desire for unity. While this is obviously to be welcomed, in some respects it clearly lays the basis for "lowest common denominator" politics, so beloved by the Communist Party, Tribunites, etc. It is exactly this tendency which, through its dominance of the anti-In Place of Strife campaign diverted the first major political strike movement for 43 years into harmless channels. The ideological and political fight against this tendency is therefore a key task for revolutionaries. The least that would result from a repeat performance of the 1969 events would be the loss of a wonderful opportunity; at most it would be a very serious setback.
One of the chief weapons in the armoury of those who, in the interests of unity, want to confine the struggle to a defensive posture against the Bill, is that the Tories are motivated by ideological reasons. This gives the movement a false perspective and leads to tactical errors. It has the additional danger of underpinning a tendency for the whole affair being transformed into a "Labour to Power" crusade.
We accept, ofcourse, that the Tories are full of hatred of the trade union movement. but this doesn't explain their policies nor why, at this particular moment, they are coming forward with such an attack on the working class. Ideological reasons might affect the precise nature of their proposals and determine minor aspects of their tactics: but far deeper processes are involved.
The starting point for any analysis must be that British capitalism is in a severe and chronic crisis. Its specific weight in the capitalist world has shown a constant tendency to decline. Its economic performance has been abysmal compared with that of important trading rivals. Its growth rate has been about half that of comparable capitalist countries and less than a third or a quarter of its most dynamic rivals— Japan and West Germany. In modern capitalism the scale of operations is decisive. British capitalism has been kept out of the fast growing West European market and its rivals have got into its former preserve, the Commonwealth. Despite some successes in the immediate post-Korean war boom, the Tories could not halt, let alone reverse this tendency. Thus some sectors of capitalist opinion favoured the return of a Labour Government in the 1964 election. Labour was to solve British capitalism's economic ills by getting the economy going on the strength of Harold Wilson's, " white heat of the technological revolution " Labour's ability to achieve this was believed to be in its ability to get the unions to accept an incomes policy. thus clearing away working class opposition to rationalisation measures and integrating the unions into neo-capitalist planning. What actually happened?
In the decade or so leading up to the Labour government, Britain had a rate of growth trend within the range of 2½ to 3% per annum. Mr Brown's National Plan was to change all this drastically. The annual growth rate was to be pushed up to 4%. In the event the annual rate of growth dropped to a mere 1.5 to 1.9%. This is lower than one could expect from purely normal technological development, greater "know-how", growth in the labour force, etc.
Far from changing the pattern, the situation got worse: there has been a slow-down in investment which will result in a tendency for even lower growth rates. The one success of the Labour Government— a 10% increase in exports between 1968 and 1969 was obtained at the expense of slowing down consumption and transfer of resources from investment to exports. When this seen in the light of the "one-off" effect of devaluation, it is not surprising that the rate of increase of exports had dropped to 3.5% between fourth quarter 1969 and fourth quarter 1970. Imports in the same period increased by 5.5%. In the eyes of the business community Labour's policies also led to galloping inflation. So Labour failed, and failed badly. to solve British imperialism's economic problems. Now on to the scene steps the bold Ted Heath, What is his solution?
Firstly, the increase in the expansion of consumer spending must be limited. The purpose of this is to make available more funds for investment and exports.
Secondly, to curb inflation, the main cause of which is, in his eyes, "inflationary" wage settlements.
Thirdly, to reduce Government expenditure. This having the combined effect of being deflationary and reducing tax margins, which in turn gives businessmen more funds for investment.
And how does the Heath government hope to achieve these ends? By a full-scale attack on workers living standards. "Inflationary" wage settlements must be phased out. Huge cuts must be made in expenditure on the social services. To do all this Heath is obliged to attack the trade unions and decisively weaken them.
We leave aside the question of whether such a policy can be successful. The OECD is of the opinion that even more is required: a wages freeze should be imposed immediatly. Heath disagrees, but the only point of difference is regarding the best way to cut workers living standards in order to increase profit rates.
Heath's present reluctance to impose a wage freeze is based upon two considerations: one that such a strategy is self-defeating— Labour's efforts in this field are a painful reminder of this and, secondly, that Britain's present healthy balance of payments position gives him enough time to make a more "peaceful" transition to a state of affairs where the unions are corporatised. But such considerations presuppose the rapid introduction of measures, through the industrial relations Bill, to decisively diminish the ability of the trade-unions to resist his economic offensive.
This is just about the sum total of room for manoeuvre which is left to any capitalist government in Britain. The experience of the Labour government demonstrates that any real alternative capitalist solution is non-existent.
Any call to defeat Heath's trade union proposals must therefore be linked with a fight to drive the Tories out of office. Any attempt to make the Tories ''see sense" or persuade them that their policies are "harmful to good industrial relations" (see TUC petition) are ludicrous and utopian in the extreme.
A call to bring down the Tories immediatly raises the question: " What is the alternative to the Tory government?" Different tendencies on the revolutionary and reformist left will give different answers to this question, according to their general assessment of the stage of capitalism.
If one thinks, as the Communist Party, the Tribunites and certain "marxist" groups seem to, that there is an alternative capitalist strategy to that of Heath, then the answer is simple: Labour to Power. Ofcourse a certain sterile qualification will be made: "with socialist policies." That seems even more absurd and utopian than the idea of making the Tories see sense. What forces are there to capture the Labour Party for these socialist policies? Within the Labour Party the picture is of further decline of internal life and a move to the right. More than 25% of the constituency Labour Parties and boroughs did not even send delegates to the Party's annual conference. Barbara Castle again headed the poll of constituency members to the National Executive Committee. The Tribunites (their leader firmly ensconced in the Shadow Cabinet) withdrew their amendment in the House of Commons without getting any guarantee that Labour would pledge itself to withdraw the Bill when returned. On the other hand we have in this country a very militant movement fighting for higher wages and against the Tory anti-trade union Bill. A movement, despite its hesitant leadership, capable of bringing 600,000 people out on a political strike.
Here there is potential; here there is life and big possibilities of a leftward anti-capitalist development. Moreover, if we can deepen this movement and extend it to include more and more trade unionists we will have the strongest anti-capitalist campaign since the 1926 General Strike.
Herein lies the answer to the question of who should replace the Tories. The present movement against the Bill must be deepened and extended through the Action Committees to become a movement to throw the Tories out of office. A movement strong enough to do this can be, and will be able, if revolutionary leadership develops. to provide the basis for a government based upon the workers organisations under democratic control, If local Labour parties continued to support candidates who would not campaign all out against the Tory Bill and other aspects of Tory policy and for the overthrow of the Tories, then the trade union movement would have to provide its own candidates.
In the Action Committees, in the trade union branches, in the trade councils, these issues should be discussed. Revolutionaries have the duty to play the key role of bringing into these discussions a socialist strategy. A socialist strategy must give an answer to the question of what form of government should come out of a successful struggle to overthrow the Tories. To merely repeat the slogans of the past is to hinder the development of an anti-capitalist movement with a socialist evolution.
Our slogan is that of a workers government based upon democratic control of workers organisations— in the present context the only real mass workers organisations are to be found in the trade union movement.
NB The more immediate problems of strategy and tactics are discussed in the IMG THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL, available from IMG publications, 5d postage) from 182 Pentonville Road, London N.1