[page 1]
A SOGIALST POLICY FOR THE
TRADE UNIONS!
[page 2]
A SOCIALIST POLICY FOR THE TRADE UNIONS!
A Statement by
THE INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP, British Section of the Fourth International.
After nearly five years of a 'Labour' government, the capitalist system in Britain looks a good deal less healthy than at any time in the living memory of younger workers. An escalating cost of living coupled with a prolonged wage freeze,unemployment figures higher than at any time since 1940, threatened penal sanctions against 'strikers' - all these facts give added relevance to the old maxim that the capitalist system is rotten~ ripe for socialism.
In recent years, Britain has indeed become known as’ the 'sick man of Europe'. Undoubtedly the problems facing the British economy are grave — but they are by no means Britain's alone. With the whole of the 'free world' threatened with a dislocation of its monetary system, a general stagnation of trade and the probability of a world-wide recession in the midseventies,the attempts of the Wilson government to 'rationalise' the economy can overnight become completely irrelevant.
With the perspective ahead of increasing inroads being made against their living standards and traditional democratic rights, British trade unionists would do well to study the valuable lessons of other workers' movements in struggle -— particularly those of the French workers last May-June, whose action posed directly the question of power and in whose interests the economy should run.
ECONOMIC CRISIS.
If the crisis has assumed a more acute form in Britain than elsewhere, this is for particular historic reasons. In a_ very real sense, British capitalism is suffering from a hangover for the debauchery of an Imperialist past. The vast overseas investments which were the basis of the British Empire — and whose income helped finance a chronically negative trade Zap have been seriously depleted by half a century of decay, war and colonial revolution.
Similarly, the fruits of British capitalism's pioneering role in the field of scientific and technological development over the past century now hang like a millstone round employers' necks. They have resulted in machinery and techniques which are completely outmoded and which, year by year, fall even further behind those of their main international competitors.
[page 3]
Co
This is why, even during the boom after the war, Britain's share of the increased world trade was minimal compared with other countries such as Germany, Japan and even France.
Ironically enough, even while Britain both economically and politically dwindles into a 'second-rate' power, its insistence on remaining amajor military force and retaining sterling as a reserve currency acts as a severe drag on that minimal development of the economy which is still possible. The result has been to place British capitalism at an even more disadvantageous position vis-a-vis its international competitors.
DEVALUATION.
The characteristic response of the ruling class, faced with this stagnation, has been to mount a drive for iucreased productivity and 'rationalisation' of the economy — at the same time as holding wages down. Increasingly, state intervention in the economy has been a cepted by a wide section of the bourgeoisie as a means of speeding up this process — and procuring the funds necessary to accomplish it. The question , however, remained before the last election as to which party would more adequately accomplish this long overdue shake-up. .
THE ELECTION OF 'LABOUR'.
It was against this background that, in 1964, leading organs of the British ruling class - such as the ‘Economist! called for the election of a Labour government. Very astutely, they reasoned that the much - needed shake up of British industry in particular, and the economy in general. would meet a tenacious resistance by the Labour movement if spearheaded by the Tories. They no doubt remembered the Tory-engineered recession of the Selwyn~Lloyd era when thousands of workers, protesting against unemployment figures nearing the 3/4 million mark, surrounded Parliament, adorned it with red flags and fought the police.
A direct attack by the capitalist class through a Tory government could indeed have provoked a general strike and a consequent social crisis. It was for this reason that the spokesmen of 'big business! readily supported the election of the Labour leaders who, confidently trading on the traditional loyalty of the Unions, would push ahead more easily with the overhaul.
Their perspective has been fully justified. In its attempts to modernise the capitalist system to make it more competitive,
[page 4]
tas
the Wilson government, far from offering even meagre conces-— sions, has been ruthless in its struggle to snatch back from the working class gains of past efforts. As the United Secret— ariat of the Fourth International put it in 1966 -
The election of the Labour Government, while continuing to pose as the representative of the British working class, systematically endevours to apply a plan of modernisation and consolidation of British Capitalism, at the cost of the growing conflict between the mass of workers above all those in the Trade Unions -~ and Harold Wilson's Labour Government.
Wilson's scheme for the modernisation of the economy has basically taken three forms which are inter-related: a rati nalisation scheme of mergers and monopolisation - a series of 'productiv-— ity' deals across all the major industries, particularly export ones ~ an absolute cut in the living standards of the working class, These direct attacks on the Labour movement have been paralleled by an attempt to stifle all rank-and-file opposition by the threat of 'penal sanctions' against strikers.
RATIONALISATION.
As the Guardian (October 3rd) put it: "The Government, whether acting through a Ministry or indirectly through its own brainchild, the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation (IRC), has left virtually no industry unturned to make British industry more competitive."
The IRC has indeed played a key role in 'modernising' British industry - mainly by strengthening the position of the monopolies by creating favourable conditions for mergers. Its activit-— les consist of making huge hand-outs to firms whom the govern-— ment would like to see merged — at well below the market rate —as was the case with Leyland Motor Holdings in January of last year.
Other major deals facilitated by the IRC include the swallowing up of EMI by the ICT in 1965, the English Electric - Elliott Automation merger in June 1967 and the AEI-GEC merger in Sept-— ember of the same year. The spiral of monopolisation has never proceeded at such a pace as under the present Labour Government. Again as the Guardian put it: "For every crisis like the one at the Upper. Clyde shipyards there have been a dozen rationalis-— ations, many of them enormous, which have faded swiftly from the headlines, if they were noticed at all."
Generally, it is through this sort of 'rationalisation' that the
[page 5]
4
employers hope to increase productivity and hence profits - by eliminating competition, by reducing unit costs and by effacing duplication of effort in such fields as research etc. To the workers who are effected by such schemes, they mean simply: redundancy.
PRODUCTIVITY DEALS.
The promotion of 'productivity' deals has become a _ central strategem of the present government not least :' because it has made it quite clear that no section of workers can expect a wage increase unless they are prepared to accept 'strings' of one kind or another.
Every major industry has therefore tasted the real meaning of such agreements ~ suitably prepared by a massive propaganda campaign on the radio and TV — from Measured Day Work in the car and engineering industries, Devlin on the docks, One Man Operat— ion on the buses ~ and pit closures for the miners.
What is involved in hese deals is not merely the sale of longestablished conditions for cash (such as safety measures, speed of production, quantity of work, etc.) which in itself means the erosion of those small elements of workers' control built up after a lifetime of bitter and sustained struggle. They are a debasement of a whole way of life. To the car worker, they mean rubbing down cars till his fingers are raw - to the docker they mean the end of a way of life he has known since he was a lad to the busman they mean a 22.5% increase in 'strain' -— to the miner it means unemployment anda zombie-type existence in a village doomed to death.
If the employers have achieved some success in promoting these deals, it is for a variety of reasons. In the first place, they are sponsored (through the Department of ‘Employment and Product— ivity) by a Labour Government in which many workers still have a certain faith. Then again, the employers have been careful in the way they have introduced the deals - making them 'negotiable' so that if accepted by the men, the employers can later claim they are jointly responsible for them.
But perhaps the most important reason for their wide-scale implementation is the role played by the Union leaders. Elected during the boom period when the mere threat of a strike was sufficient to guarantee the success of a claim, these leaders cannot cope with a situation where every struggle necessarily brings the workers into conflict with the government. The 'left'! Union leaders have played an equally defeatist role. Realising the heinous nature of these deals but unwilling or unable to come up with an alternative strategy to fight them, they are
[page 6]
y)
instrumental in selling them to the rank and file. It was thus that Jeck Jones was a key figure in getting London busmen to accept productivity ~ and Hugh Scanlon got his own rank and file to accept the principle of Measured Day Work.
CUTS IN LIVING STANDARDS.
One of the central features of the present 'Labour' Government is that, far from defending capitalism by granting meagre reforms which is the traditional role of social-democracy, it has deliberately pursued a policy of cutting the living standards of every working man and woman in the country.
This it has tackled in many ways. In the first place it has ruthlessly pushed up the cost of living. It has given the goahead for rent increases (by as much as 30% over four years in London), increased he price of all fuels, restored prescription charges and raised the cost of optical and dental treatment, allowed the cost of travelling to soar by as much as 10% since 1964, raised the cost of the social security stamp by 1/6 - and not lifted a finger to prevent general price increases in consumer goods.
At the same time, as soon as it came to office, the government imposed a 34% ceiling on wages - which was soon followed by -a more draconian 'wage freeze'. This has only recently been rest— ored to a 33% norm for any further increase, dependent, of course, on the acceptance of 'productivity strings'.
ATTACKS ON THE UNIONS.
In order to force workers into accepting this general offensive on their livelihood and living standards, the government has followed a consistent policy of creating unemployment. Between January 1965 and January 1968, unemployment rose from 376,000 to 584,000 - and promises even by 'official' estimates to reach 3/4 million by the end of the year. But by far the most serious, long-term and traitorous action by this so-called 'Labour Government' has been its attempt to straightjacket the Unions by imposing legal sanctions against ‘unofficial' strikers. It is true that the subsequent withdrawal of 'In PLace of Strife' has been seen by many workers as a qualified victory. No doubt this is partly true. But it must still be recognised that, at the end of the day, the government manoevered the TUC into accepting the job of policing its own members with powers which are quite considerebte. As the Daily Telegraph of July 31st 1969 put it: the government was “agreeably surprised" by the results it obtained from the TUC.
[page 7]
6
THE ROLE OF THE TRADITIONAL WORKERS' LEADERSHIPS.
If anything has characterised the role of the traditional Union leadership, confronted with a general offensive on its members' interests and rights, it has been the cowardly charact— er of its resistance and the speed of its capitulation. Faced with a centralised and agressive capitalist adversary, it has backed down on point after point - as was shown in its willing— ness to do the government's dirty work in policing militants in the Unions.
Far from tackling head-on a government intent on putting it ina straightjacket, it has systematically tried to "woo" it away from the embrace of big business. This is the theme of speech after speech at the TUC over the past five years, summed up in Cousins! plea to the government to "lean on" and not "stand on" the Unions.
In this sense, the difference between the 'right' and the 'left! in the Union Movement -— personified on the one hand by Cannon and Greene, and on the other by Scanlon and Jones - is not as real as may at first appear. ‘Scanlon and Jones have continually limited their opposition to government policy to bureaucratic manouvres and '‘militant' speeches. They have consistently refused to rely on the strength of the rank-and-file - as. was shown during their refusal to officially support the mobilisat-— ion of last May and June, using it, instead, as a bargaining counter in their tussle with the government.
There can be no doubt that both Scanlon and Jones are seen by wide sections of the Trade Union Movement as 'militants' and thus command a great deal of respect from the rank-and-file. Revolutionary socialists must indeed take into account the illusions still fostered in such leaders: but it would be criminal in any strategy to increase these illusions as to any role they may play in the future. Lacking any alternative strategy because of their role in the Labour bureaucracy -— they refuse to lead any opposition to government attacks on the basis of rank-andfile strength, and are thus forced to back down on point after point. It was for this reason that they ended up voting for the TUC's 'Programme for Action'.
The role of such leaders is important precisely because they act as a brake on the autonomous action of the class, limiting it within the bounds of the 'official' machinery. The role of the Communist Party has been almost identical. Unable or unwilling to put forward an alternative strategy, they have ended up accepting in many cases 'productivity deals' -— and were instrumental in opening the doors to the TUC's 'Programme for Action’.
[page 8]
By refusing to come out clearly with a programme opposed to any interference with the democratic rights of the Labour Movement, by concentrating purely on the government's proposed legislation they channeled all opposition mobilised in the May and June strikes behind the 'left' leaders, thus ensuring the compromise which now exists. The role played by the Communist Party has been vital because, trading on their history as 'militants', they have been able to ensure that the undoubted anger and resiliance of the class was channeled along 'official' paths.
RESULTS AND PROSPECTS.
There can be little doubt that the Labour Government has made some real steps in 'rationalising' the economy —- in making it more 'competitive'. But in the long term, these 'reforms' are of little consequence: as bourgeois economists themselves have acknowledged, it would need but a minor recession in world trade for the boasts of the Wilson Government to be seen as completely empty.
And it is precisely such a prospect which lies before the capit— alist world. British trade unionists can, then, in the coming years, expect further attacks on their living standards and democratic rights - particularly if a Tory Government were returned at the next election.
But this time the employers are confronting a working class which has been undefeated for 30 years —- one which has great reserves of combattivity and self-confidence. This has been shown only recently in the wave of strikes that have taken place - by traditionally militant sections of workers such as the car workers, to more 'conservative' sections such as the miners and London dustmen, The only threat to this combattivity is the dis-— jointed nature of the struggles that will continue to arise in the future and which, if unrelated, might possibly bring with them a certain demoralisation.
For these struggles to succeed, it is imperative that the max-— imum unity be established among all sections of workers -— skill-~ ed and unskilled, women and men, employed and unemployed, organised and unorganised. Only thus can the struggles be centralised against the main enemy ~— and only thus can the basis be laid for the ransformation of state power out of the hands of the bourgeoisie into those of the workers, which is the only solution to the crisis. The key increating such a unity in action is a rev~ olutionary organisation, supported by the Trade Unions.
The International Marxist Group, recognising the great historic necessity for creating such an organisation, calls for a united front of all revolutionary groups and trade union militants
[page 9]
8
around a programme of transitional demands which, if skilfully utilised, could play an important part in the development of a mass revolutionary organisation in the struggles to come.
PROGRAMME FOR ACTION. Nationalisation without compensation of the basic means of production, banking and finance under workers’ control. This is the only practical solution to the increase in unemployment — already grasped by the militant Action Committee at the threat of the GEC-EE take-over in Liverpool this year. Immediate cessation of the wage freeze and restoration of full freedom of negotiation. Wide support should immediately be gathered to oppose any interference with the long-fought for democr-— atic rights of the Labour Movement. Immediate introduction of the 40 hour week without a reduction in weekly earnings. With a rapid escalation in unemployment figures, this could become a key issue in uniting employed and unemployed and the basis for a campaign against redundancies created through mergers or shut-—downs. Women's equal pay and rights ~ now! The low rates of pay received by women in industry acts as a constant drag on the unity of the class in action - and is instrumental in the bosses! divid— ing the workers and getting productivity deals across (as in the engineering dispute last year). A campaign should immediately be launched for equal pay - as well as equal opportunity in work and backed up by industrial action. Immediate elaboration by the Trade Union Movement of a general plan of development of the British economy under common ownership and workers! control, geared to a steep rise in social expenditure in favour of the most disinherited parts of the British people, to increase collaboration with the countries with a socialised economy and with colonial countries. Such a plan would be devised to free the British economy from the dict— ates of the City and the international bankers ~ and to modernise the economy without imposing the burden on the working people. Immediate return to a free health service. Iron clad clauses to impliment laws against racial discrimination, particularly in employment and wage rates. Immediate introduction of the £20 minimum weekly wage for all workers — male or female. Immediate acceleration of a low cost housing programme with a national target of 750,000 a year. Drastic measures to impliment compre— hensive education.
Self-determination for Ireland. The withdrawal of all British troops. Solidarity with the oppressed Catholic workers in Derry and Belfast.
november 1969.