class
Arguments for Socialism struggle
Angus Phillips argues for an
alternative to Labour's
"alternative strategy". THROUGHOUT the miners' strike a constant theme of Labour's front bench has been to deplore "the divisive actions of the government". Apparently Thatcher's other main crime is that she is "non-interventionist". Labour luminaries who secretly oppose the strike or have no guts to defend it against Tory press witch-hunts, bleat about the need for an "honourable solution" — and call on Thatcher to "intervene" and arrange one!
That Kinnock is the main exponent of this line is a telling indication of the kind of government we should expect if Labour win the next election. Yet Kinnock is also an advocate of Labour's "Alternative Strategy" for the economy, in which the same approach is the basic starting point.
For Marxists, the starting point of analysis and strategy must be the recognition of the class struggle. The rules of that struggle, simply stated, are "get them before they get us". Thatcher has operated on that principle for the ruling class since May 1979: Kinnock complains that she is not playing fair, and himself preaches class collaboration, social harmony and respect for the capitalist state's forces of "law and order". At most, where there are criticisms of the police, he may call timidly for "improvements" or "reforms".
So it is with "solutions" to the crisis which seek to reform rather than overturn the existing system of class society. They avoid, downplay and skirt round — or oppose entirely - the mobilisation of the working class against the existing order. They avoid or positively deny the necessary all-out assault on and defeat of capitalist power, as vested in ownership of capital and control of the state.
Marxists on the other hand seek to encourage the mobilisation of the working class as a class, to mount the struggle for a new, socialist order. We do not see workers' mobilisation as simply an auxiliary to a Parliamentary
Labour government: rather the mass organisations of the working class must fight tooth and nail to force their demands upon their representatives in parliament.
The programme and policies of a socialist, workers government must be developed in the course of the class struggle. For us it is not a case of seeking legislation giving workers the right to "a say in running their firms ... to influence in economic planning ... (to) information, consultation and representation within their companies." (1983 Labour Manifesto), Each of these phrases expressly leaves control, decision-making and ownership in the hands of the present capitalist class, whose drive for increased profits is the root cause of mass unemployment and every other facet of Thatcherism.
We need actively to promote the independent organisation of workers at the point of production, rejecting spurious "joint committees". We must fight every attempt to con the workforce into thinking they have any common interests on which they can cooperate with management without cutting their own — or some other workers'
Absolute independence of the working class is vital. This means we must also campaign to demystify the worlds of "business", "finance" and management. Just look at the way govSocialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 14
-Blackpool '84= emment and NCB have cooked the books of the coal industry to portray it as a vast loss-maker, when the whole "deficit" is attributable to interest payments and deliberate government policies. Rather than sitting down alongside management to study the future of a company, workers' representatives must demand independent access to the whole of the company's books, and train themselves, with the aid of sympathetic experts, to understand them.
As managements seek still further to increase profitability, we can expect more redundancies, closures and cuts in public services. To learn the workings of capitalism, the operation of govemment finance, and the tricks of accounting, workers must fight for the opening of the books, and use the information further to educate workers against the employers' propaganda.
On the basis of this knowledge, work can begin on an independent workers' plan for jobs and for regenerating industry and society in their the interests of the working class. The first moves for such a plan can be taken by shop stewards' committees, trade unions, women's organisations, community groups and bodies of the unemployed. Tenants on estates could prioritise repairs and improvements and cost them out. They should look at plans for production, allocation of scarce resources, vital investments for the future and so on.
This would be a far cry from the present Labour Party policy, centred as it is upon notions of "controlled reflation" and narrow nationalist horizons. It would call for an entirely new form of state power to carry it through; a workers'state, based on mass organisations of workers' democracy.
The 1983 Labour Manifesto described the necessity for a "national economic assessment":
"This will set out the likely growth in the national output and how it could be shared. It will cover the allocation of resources, and the distrubution of income between profits, earnings from employment, rents, social benefits and other incomes."
The Manifesto stressed that this is part of a process aimed at achieving "a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in
favour of working people and their families". Clearly this aim - precisely the opposite of the result achieved under the last Labour government with its brutal years of wages controls - 15 likely to be opposed by those who seek to shift the balance of power and wealth towards the capitalist class and their families through boosting profits. Yet the Manifesto pledges Labour to "share" national output with the capitalist class: profits are the first category mentioned in the national cake.
Throughout the 1983 Manifesto which listed many laudable objectives, there was no discussion at all as to the likely response from the employers to any far-reaching shift of power and wealth.
Yet the employers, who have been given increased powers to trample over their workforce, are not going lightly to give that up and embark on a socialist road. They will insist, as always, on prolits first, with social benefits maybe sometime in the future.
They will work with a Labour government only while it acts in their interests; and when it ceases to do so they will obstruct it.
This is why from the outset we must make it clear that the major industrial and financial monopolies must be taken out of the ownership and control of the capitalist class. To accomplish such a takeover in the face of the inevitable bleating reluctance of the Labour leadership requires preparation of mass action at workplace level by the working class, which is more than capable of taking over and running factories and banks and driving out senior management and the employers. Only when industry is controlled by workers and collectively owned can we hope to carry through a socialist plan that will set the millions back to work. Only workers' active struggle can defend such gains and prevent the employers moving back in.
A working class Alternative Strategy, in short, counterposes to Kinnock's laments over "divisive policies" a vigorous prosecution of the class struggle, and raises the question of building a political leadership to take it forward.
Eleven years ago this month, Salvador Allende's reformist government was brutally destroyed by the Pinochet coup. The lessons of Chile tell us that we have two alternatives: we either leave things well alone and allow capital to run riot over the jobs, wages and living conditions of working people; or we organise to expropriate the capitalists, destroy their state machinery of police, judiciary and army, etc, and replace it with our own. We in Socialist Viewpoint are committed to the second course, and invite readers to join with us in fighting for it.
Bloody Sunday finds Labour silent By Basil Hinton, Vice Chair, Labour Committee on Ireland. THE HIDEOUS scenes, amazingly broad. cast on television, of the RUC riot against a peaceful republican demonstration on Sunday August 12 must have rung some bells for miners and workers horrified by police brutality against NUM pickets. But it also highlights the continuing war on the six counties of Northern Ireland.
Since 1969 we have seen British troops sent by Wilson's Labour government attempting to beat down the nationalist population; in January 1972 we saw the Parachute Regiment's Bloody Sunday slaughter in Derry, followed by endless repressive measures denying the most basic democratic rights to nationalist opponents of British rule.
Liberal leader David Steel — no anti-imperialist — has openly condemned the Belfast RUC riot and the murder of Sean Downes. Yet from Neil Kinnock and Irish spokespersons Peter Archer and Clive Soley there has been the silence of the graveyard — despite Labour Party policy o opposing plastic bullets.
The Labour leadership's continued support for British occupation of Ireland puts them in a slavish position of support for Tory policy. They dare not utter a word of criticism of the gerrymandered imposition of the border in 1922.
The majority of people in both Britain and Ireland now support a British withdrawal: but still the Labour leaders cringe before the most backward sections of opinion in the labour bureaucracy and the propaganda of the Tory press.
There is no improvement for the Catholic minority. An eye witness recently touring the six counties has told Socialist Viewpoint that the RUC and UDR are still
enting their fury over the failure to captur
fartin Galvin during the Bloody Sunda Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 15
=Blackpool '84= events. They are mounting a massive campaign of harassment and intimidation against the nationalist people.
The Labour Committee on Ireland is maintaining its policy of promoting a dialogue between the British labour movement and Sinn Fein and the nationalists Nationalist speakers have featured on the platforms of LCI-organised meetings in towns up and down the country. MPs who support LCI policy have been speaking out, and Ken Livingstone's stand has been exemplary on this issue.
The LCI also welcomes Tony Benn's draft Bill for a British withdrawal as an excellent initiative to raise the debate in the labour movement.
The formation of a trade union sub committee in the LCI, to make links between trade unionists in Britain and their counterparts in Ireland must focus on the rank and file level, and aim at changing the present positions of most union leaders in Britain.
Unconditional withdrawal of troops has been the key LCI slogan since its formation, and it must not be watered down into "Declarations of Intent" or vague calls for a federalist Ireland.
The LCI Women's Group has also been actively promoting links with women in the nationalist community, sending women's delegations to Ireland, supporting campaigns for abortion rights and against stripsearches. It is open to all Labour women interested in building links between feminism and anti-imperialism.
This year's Labour Party conference agenda has 18 resolutions on Ireland, 16 of which support various LCI positions. Under "Party Organisation", however there are four resolutions which mistakenly call for Labour organisation in the North of Ireland; we consider this to be a soft option, avoiding a stand on the central issues of the troops and the border.
Some of these resolutions will be composited, but we urge delegates to support those which primarily call for British withdrawal, and on returning from the conterence to join the struggle to build the LCI.
END: life in the