the moment. The TUC leaders are being crushed between the militancy of their members. and the determination of the ruling class to weaken the trade union movement as a whole through persistent use of the Industrial Relations Court. Thus we see Jack Jones's decision to accept the Court's ruling on the one hand, by shelling out the £55,000 and trying to persuade the Liverpool dockers to call off their blacking. But on the other we see him putting down ultimatums to the TUC to pay a share of the fine on pain of not receiving any dues from the T&GWU. Thus we see the Railway leaders after accepting the cooling-off period forced back to negotiate firstly for a back-dating of the claim. secondly for a genuine 12%% increase (because the previous offer amounted to under 10% actual increase as it involved a consolidation into the basic pay of what had previously been bonus and piece rates). Nothing could better illustrate the dual nature of the bureaucracy than this constant vacillation. In the present situation, such slogans as Throw the Tories Out!" may well express the anger of the working class. But they do not indicate any line of struggle for it or point out the main obstacles in the way. To vent one's rage simply on the Tories and the "Tories" Act" only leaves the road open for the Trade Union leaders to cover up their inadequacy by posing for the way forward the election of a Labour Government- which would, they say, repeal the Act and even institute "Socialist Policies". Now when we say that it is the crisis of British The Red Mole 15.May 1972 Page 2 Capitalism which forces the government to operate in the way it has we do not mean it as an empty phrase. A government may come to office with all sorts of intentions. But so long as if conducts itself within the framework of bourgeois democracy then it will be forced to adopt courses of action which permit the capitalists to maintain their exploitation of the working class.
Of course it was the Tories who brought in the Act, but it is the crisis of British capitalism which requires it. Moreover it is the State, the bourgeois state which operates the Act. The Court is a state institution and the state is just not a neutral body whose courts dispense something called pure justice. No, the state is controlled by the ruling class-the bourgeoisie. It comes down hard on the T&GWU and the Railways unions because the ruling class needs this policy. But the Labour Party has always operated within the confines of bourgeois democracy; it has never challenged any of the institutions (Parliament, the Law etc.) which embody that ideology. And it is for this reason that the Party is incapable of fighting in the interests of the working class, for proletarian democracy.
For that is what it is all about! The "Democracy of the bourgeoisie is the freedom it gives to all other classes to intervene in politics only on its own terms. The limitations to these terms are the laws of its state. is it dem ocracy when the whole legal structure is des. igned to protect the private property and vital interests of a few against the vast majority? Of course, everyone is 'free" to use the courts.
But does any worker fighting for his interests as a worker against an employer dream that the Industrial Relations Court would settle in his favour? Of course not!
The court is an attempt to dictate to the workers how to conduct their struggle against the employers. But it itself is the employers' court and only they will leap to exercise the right" and "freedom" to use it.
We must counterpose to this law another lawthe law which protects and defends the interests of the mass of workers against those who exploit them. This law is not to be found in the leather tomes of the Inns of Court. It will be legislated by the workers themselves while fighting to defend and enlarge their interests. The Liverpool dockers, before they were forced to stop the blacking, began this legislation by continuing their action in direct defiance of the law of the land'. Only by extending and deepening their fight can the working class stake up the challenge to its own organisations and living standards and begin to tread the raod that leads to workers" power. The most treacherous leadership to be fought against will be the trade union leaders though differentiation is and will occur among them toowitness the split vote on whether to recall the TUC. The idea that the Labour Party would fight somehow for the interests of the working class is the most pernicious red-herring which will be dragged across the correct road for r the workers to struggle on.
It is with all this in mind that we can see the importance of the June 10 Conference of the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade ability to bring out hundreds of thousands of trade unionists against the Industrial Relations Bill. Only it has the organising capacity to lead a real struggle against the Act. If it does the implications for the Communist Party are clear. It would mean a break with the longstanding commitment to work with the left' trade union leaders and to work for an alliance with the Labour Party 'lefts". Instead it would find itself organising a rank and file movement against such leaders. If the Communist Party is prepared to lead a struggle with anti-capitalist aims and methods then the LCDTU may become an organisation of hundreds of thousands of workers. If it fails to make this choice, if it too contents itself on June 10 with platitudes against the Tories and a sham fight then the LCDTU becomes a diversion and a trap for militants.
It is important that revolutionary trade union militants see the June 10 conference as a focus for their activities and ensure their representation there. It is equally important that the LCDTU really projects itself as an ongoing, permanent organisation and encourages the formation of branches up and down the country. But lastly, it is essential if June 10 is to mean anything atall, that the LCDTU breaks with its manipulative practices and ensures that the conference becomes a real forum in which a line of strugele for the working class can begin to be hammered out in free and ind open debate. Those who, today, are afraid of revolutionary ideas will not be leading the working class in the turbulent struggles to come. They will be by-passed.
as par you op por quoyo fraodas pur sInoy SE 10)
are spurmap jo suot soul twuy pur fuum Jaso ONE 102 MOU 2U2 0UE SIS SIS-38EC0L (0)
(2) (E)
(9)
(o)
(P) Support spurmap jo passaco gesodoad puncle angel VAX0M3U1 105333 3120001530530 Tuaw SALI peppog u wornadtoo JO)
Extracts from his speech to the recent conference of
Although we are but a small part of the trade union movement and have in reality a relatively low strike power, our policles far out weigh our numerical and industrial strength. They do so because our policies over the past eight years have been based upon a clear, honest and principled commitment to advance the interests of our members and the class to which they belong There is therefore upon all of you this week the great historical responsibility of ensuring that the policies which we forged during the last few years are strengthened and extended at this critical stage in our movement's history. I am confident that throughout this conference the voice of principle will speak out clearly and without equivocation to echo in the corners of reaction, wherever they may lark or in whatever guise they appear.
AMALGAMATION Throughout 1971 we have seen the first real concrete steps to consolidate the amalgamation of our union, There now exists the basis for that ideal which engineering workers have long sought, one great union for all those who work in the engineering industry.
I now regard it as both a political and industral act to work vigorously for the building of this great union. I am not talking about gaining an increase in membership at the expense of principle and policy. I despise those in our trade union movement who are now straining at the leash to become State appendages and go to the NIRC to gain agency shops and bargaining units in order to scavenge a few more members TECHNOLOGY As the union catering for technical workers in the engineering industry our members, more than any other, see day in day out the appalling mis-use of technology.
Our members long to be able to use their great skill and ability to design and produce equipment which would provide the material basis for a fuller, more dignified form of existence. Yet in our profit-mad society such equipment is used to subordiante man to the machine and reduce him to the level of a mere machineappendage. In order to maximise their profits the employers will seek to exploit this equipment 24 hours a day, demanding systematic overtime or three-shift working Indeed it now seems you are breaking the law if you refuse. This equipment is used to create a frantic work tempo for some whilst driving others, in particular older men, into the dole queues. It is scandalous that with one million out of work systematic overtime continues and it's high time the trade union movement considered a national overtime ban.
Such equipment now makes possible, indeed it makes necessary, a 35-hour week for all workers, and longer holidays. Yet the unemployment grows, and we have the hypocritical bellicose statements of some so-called trade union leaders, in the cosy sanctity of the TUC at some seaside resort, who deplore unemployment whilst in reaty they have spent the last three or four years peddling productivity deals which have given direct rise to this present unemployINTERNATIONAL At an international level we have seen throughout the year a great development in the national uberation movement, and the struggle of oppressed people all over the world in asserting their rights to run their countries in their own interests, In Vietnam we have seen the greatest imperialist power in the world, the United States, fought to a complete standstill. During the last few weeks we have seen the liberation forces deal sledge hammer blows to the puppet Saigon government. We have supported the struggle of oppressed people in every place, recognising that any setback that the forces of imperialism experience is also a blow for our freedom in this country.
As we condemn the role of imperialism throughout the world we must also condemn its role in Northern Ireland. I hope that during the coming year all Irish workers, whetherthey live North or South, be Protestant or Catholic, will recog nise that their interests are diametrically opposed to that of British imperialism and its agents the Act. The rights of the trade union movein Ireland, and that together they will begin to forge the sort of United Ireland which was conceived by James Connolly when he spoke about a Workers' Republic.
CRISIS OF CAPITALISM With all of these monumental events taking place about us it is clear to me that this Conference is going to be one of the most critical in our history. Together with the rest of the trade union movement we now stand at a great historical crossroads, The well worn road of economism and reformism, which in the past we travelled, will no longer provide an escape route. The system in which we live isin such dire crisis that it no longer has in it the flexibility of even tolerating a so-called free trade union movement. The Government and State makes its position brutally clear. Either we become registered State agencies, docile tools of the employers and act as industrial policemen in curbing our own members by conforming to the Industrial Relations Act, or we will be breaking the law, will be fined and may even be imprisoned.
A sustained effort is now being made to turn our trade union movement into a form of Falangist type organisation, It is not being alarmist to say that some of the measures now being taken move us dangerously close to the Corporate State. As this happens we have the pathetic bleating of the Labour-ites, such as Reg Prentice, advising us not to break the law. Yet, right from the beginning, the President of our Union, Hugh Scanion, made it clear that to defeat this Act and to abide by the TUC policy would mean breaking the law. He said at Croydon "recommendation 4 deals with the Bridlington principles and moreover, with our determination to maintain traditional trade union organisation, must mean defiance of the law if this Bill becomes an Act". Well, it is an Act and we should defy the law. We should support Hugh Scanlon and any others who defy it. Now that the first real shots have been fired by the State we witness the appalling spinelessness of most of the TUC so-called Jeaders. We are told that we must go to the NIRC to defend ourselves but should not initiate cases. As this pattern of betrayal continues we will be told that we should not be in the negative position of defending ourselves in cases selected by the employers. Gradually, it will be suggested that we should send some good cases in order that we can defend our organisation.
The next degeneration will be to say that, since we go to the courts, it is important that we have the AUEW/Technical and Supervisory Section representatives sitting on them who will articulate our demands. We will then have arrived at a position of total collaboration with the State in suppressing, through these courts, the aspirations of our own members. We are frequently told how fortunate we are in Britain that we have one united TUC. This is contrasted with the unfortunate situation in France where they have three trade union centres, Yet in France, they can call a General Strike in 24 hours-that is not bad disunity. If having in this country a united trade union movement means that we all work together to dig a grave for free trade unionism, through these courts, then I do not believe that our Union should be a part of this. But the rot could still be stopped if the Congress were recalled and the whole of the trade union movement mobilised to fight for the existing Congress policy of complete non-co-operation with ment were never established in courts but by using our industrial strength, where necessary in defiance of the law.
Let us then be clear about the law in this coun try. We as trade unions exist in Britain in spite of the law, and not because of it. The law has always operated against the interests of working people and for the protection of private property. It is not all that long ago since their laws allowed them to put kids of 7 and 8 down the mines, even if they'd be coughing up their lungs nine months afterwards. There is nothing moral or just or sacrosanct about the law. Where there are bad laws we have a responsibility to break them.
MINERS During the coming months it is going to be imperative that the viole of the trade union movement stands up, is counted and refuses to be intimidated. Yet when a section did stand up and fight and win, and the miners did just that, the TUC could not get round quick enough to bail the Government out by starting talks on a wages policy and threshold agreements. It was tea and biscuits at Downing Street as usual, instead of con dispute the arrogant John Davies was reduced solidating the miners' victory and encouraging other sections to deal shattering blows and present this Government, and those whom it represents, with their Waterloo.
Heath expressed his alarm that the elected parliament was being by-passed, as well he might. For the miners did more in those six weeks to end the Government's incomes' norm than all the claptrap in Parliament and all the protest delegations that went up there during the last two years. Heath says this is not in the public interest. Well what public is he talking about? Workers and their families constitute about 48 of the 56 million people in tius country. If that's not the public then I don't know what is.
There is now growing throughout this contry a new realisation that direct action is the way to get things done. This new militancy rang through the mines. It now rings through the railways, engineering workshops and even airlines. Its echoes ripple as far as Universities and teachers' staff rooms.
This militancy is to be welcomed and encouraged, but its limitations should be understood. Industrial militancy can at the best only protect our members from the worst excesses of the system and heighten the contradictions within it. Real progress in Britain now depends on the emergence of a political force which will tearlessly project the aspirations of ordinary people. Wider sections of the community are now beginning to recognise the need for such a force. But one of the ways to diffuse and end this development will be to administer that old political anaestheticsocial democracy. LABOUR GOVERNMENT We are now being told that the movement has gone tar enough, and what we need to do is wait until we get the return of a Labour Government, committed to repeal the Industrial Relations Act and save us from the Common Market. We will be told that all we've got to do is to return a Labour Government dedicated to socialism. Dedicated, I might add, for the seventh time. We have had six Labour administrations, and each one of them have proved themselves to be as effective and able an administrator of the system as the Tories have done.
Yet, we are still told that they are our friends and they simply made a mistake. Well if one of my friends kicks me in the teeth oncelaccept that perhaps he made a mistake. If he kicks me in the teeth twice then I regard him as being dangerously confused. But if he kicks me in the teeth six times, then I take the message. And our members should take the message. Trust not Heath or Wilson, but yourself, and with that confidence in yourself begin to generate that political force in Britain which will cater for your interests and that of your class.
Part of the attack they are now mounting upon us is to make us feel confused, disunited and weak. Well it's not us who are weak. It is their bankrupt system which is weak. All over the world ordinary people are realising the universal truth, that the great only appear great when you are on your knees. They are standing up and have been counted, and so should we And in the first instance we have an enormous economic power with which to do so. The mineworkers demonstrated what that power means in real terms. At the end of that to a pathetic spectacle on television with a little candle in front of him, because the mineworkers had said there would be no electrical power. And if 300,000 miners in a declining industry can do that what could the great engineering and tranport unions do. We have enormous economic power, if we would but use it. Those who pose themselves as our permanent masters are in reality nothing without us. All the paper money of Arnold Weinstock, Donald Stokes and Paul Chambers is meaningless, for you cannot eat pound notes, you cannot drive around in them, and you cannot live in them. They only have a meaning when people like you and I go into factories and produce the real wealth that that paper money represents. They are nothing without us, and if they all disappeared tomorrow there would still be designers designing the finest equipment in the world. There would still be skilled workers building it, and other workers operating it. The miners would still dig coal, the bricklayers would still build houses, the teachers would still teach. This is the great economic power that we have got. If that great power is led by a conscious political organisation which points the real way forward for all victims of the system then nothing can prevent us moving forward to create that sort of society in Britain which will cherish all its people equally, and will end the unemployment, squalor and the suffering now borne by us to maximise profits for the few.