Solidarity with the Stoke Newington Eight Fikenham occupation Engineering dispute runs into trouble PAGE FIVE LCDTU: Basingstoke adopts fighting programme PAGES SIX AND SEVEN The Docks: (1) Labour and Devlin (2) The present dispute (3) The struggle in Hull PAGE EIGHT Italy after the elections PAGE NINE Vietnamese fighters call for worldwide solidarity Quebec strike wave PAGE TEN IMG/SL Fusion Conference report PAGE ELEVEN LCDSU Conference PAGE TWELVE Ireland: next period decisive Kent students occupy Vietnam demo STOP PRESS JERUSALEM: A member of the Fourth International who has been in jail for six months is coming up for trial by Military Tribunal and may be sentenced to five years for insubordination. His name is GUIORA NOYMAN.
It is essential that European revolutionaries and socialists everywhere understand the isolation and extremely difficult working conditions for revolutionaries in Israel. Such a trial by the Israeli State must not pass unnoticed.
We urge comrades everywhere to send teleguns and letters of solidarity with Guiora yman to the Israeli Embassy.
CORRECTION In the programme of Basingstoke LCDTU printed on page 5 of this issue, the following alterations should be made: 1. End of section 1, summing up points: FOR THE REPEAL OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; then instead of NO LAWS AGAINST THE TRADE UNIONS it should read NO FURTHER LAWS AGAINST THE TRADE UNIONS. The rest follows on. 2. Section 2, top of column 3, delete everything after albeit in a more "moderate" form, including slogans, and replace simply with NO TO ANY FORM OF INCOMES POLICY. 3. Section 4, the second slogan should read OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE PAID MORE THAN THE AVERAGE WAGE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THEY REPRESENT. Four years of sound and fury by the TUC apinst industrial relations legislation has been shown to be completely hollow over the last few weeks. Worse still, the TUE'S talk undoubtedly fooled a large number of people into thinking that they could leave it to the General Council to lead a struggle against the Act. Today, even the lefts of the TUC such as Jack Jones - hero of last year's Croydon recall conference of the TUC - are taking orders from the NIRC in trying to get the dockers to stop blacking the containers.
The hopes of many militants have now focused on next weekend's conference of the Liaison Commistee for the Defence of Trade Unions for new leadership ideas in the struggle against the Act. But the starting point for such a conference must be an analysis of why the huge forces of the trade union movement have, over the last weeks since the Bill became law, appeared powerless before a few members of the capitalist class huddled together in the NIRC and Downing Street. It is only in this way that a movement on a firm basis can be built Unfortunately, the Communist Party, whose members have taken the lead in calling the LCDTU conference, has produced a phoney analysis of the reasons for the collapse of the General Council. They say it is because the majority of the TUC changed its position over the last few weeks and sold out. But the root cause of the collapse has not been an about turn, but the wrong position that Feather and Co. have taken from the start. Their old position was "No recognition", "No co-operation' etc., a policy of passivity in relation to the actions of the NIRC. But they were very quickly shown that it is absolutely impossible to remain with arms folded when the court is threatening to take all union funds away for 'disobedience" Non-co-operation has been shown to be a son-starter. The TUC leadership naturally ridiculed the warnings from the revolutionary left that the only choice was to support the Act against the working class, or to lead the working class in a direct attack on the Act and all those agents of the capitalist class who were backing the Act. However, when Donaldson and Heath gave the TUC exactly the same analysis, Feather took no more than 48 hours to accept it and jump off the fence onto the side of the NIRC. Those members of the General Council who still declare themselves in favour of non-co-operation — the 'left-wingers' as the Morning Star mis-calls them — are simply arguing for a few more weeks of fence sitting, either as a preparation for capitulation, or in the hope that the rank and file will ignore them and produce a new leadership for the fight against the Act. In the event of no such spontaneous response from the rank and file these "lefts" will beat a retreat into Feather's camp under the smokescreen of empty phrases about the return of a Labour government which will repeal the Act. In reality however, the continual talk about a future Labour government is designed to divert attention from the need to struggle against the Act now. The policy of the Communist Party in fact has a two fold confusion. Firstly, it does not analyse either why the Act was introduced nor the nature of the Labour Party: secondly, it does not analyse how to organise a real fight against the Act. The reasons why the Act were introduced were quite simple. They were because the British bourgeoisie knew it could no longer afford a strong trade union movement. It arrived at this position not because a few evil Tories" decided to bash the trade unions, but because the whole development of international and British capitalism made the cutting of the living standards of the working class an urgent necessity for improving the competitiveness of British capitalism. It is because Britain is a capitalist state that the Industrial Relations Bill was introduced and not because it was a Tory government. All the economic pressures which led to the Act being passed will continue to operate quite regardless of what government exists as long as the state remains a capitalist one. If Labour were in power tomorrow then, if it still operated within the framework of capitalism, it would be forced to use the Act or to pass some similar bill which had the same aims as the Industrial Relations Act. Unless the Communist Party and the TUC actually expect the Labour Party to destroy capitalism, then their talk of a future Labour government to repeal the Act is just so much pie in the sky. Pust as importantly however, the C.P. does not show how the present struggle of the working class can be built on to defeat the Act. By counterposing a future electoral struggle to the present fight it in fact tries to ensure that there will be no struggle at alL The only really effective way to wage a struggle against the act is to link this struggle to the struggle of the entire working class on all issues such as rents, racism, discrimination against women, etc. But this struggle is completely ineff. ective if it is done on the basis of respect for the law and the right of the government to rule. For the TUC to have mobilised the working class against the Act it needed to explain through a great campaign of agitation why it is necessary and right for trade unionists to fight against Parliament, the courts and the laws of the capitalist state.
Without this preparation there can be no struggle. As long as the 'rule of law' is accepted then the government can always turn round and say we are elected to make the law so now carry it out', and any strug. gle collapses.
Unfortunately, the way in which the LCDTU has begun to state its position indicates that it is likely to make almost exactly the same mistakes. For example in an article in the Morning Star of 5th June, Eddie Marsden of the Construction Section of the AUEW, in supporting the LCDTU conference, states that "the General Council of the TUC is today undemocratically changing Congress policy" and lays his stress on "ensuring that the next Labour government will repeal the Act". He is at least correct in stressing the need to defy the present Act but sees the way of achieving this as mainly strengthening the 'left' wing of the TUC at the expense of the right wing. But this left wing has already shown what it means when Jones accepted the NIRC fine on his union. The whole trouble is that the Communist Party does not see the task of the LCDTU as fighting for the leadership of the trade unions but instead sees itself as a ginger group acting to pressurise the trade union leaderships. This has a disastrous effect when it comes to any real struggle. For example at the time of the fight against the Industrial Relations Bill becoming law the LCDTU got off to a flying start. At its meeting to plan the December 8th,1970, one day strike, nearly 2,000 delegates attended. In December and January of that winter two successful strikes were held against the Bill. Yet because the LCDTU saw its role not as leading a struggle but as applying pressure, once the AUEW leadership stepped in and called two one day strikes, the CODTU campaign collapsed. Furthermore, when the lefts accepted the "no-cooperation line at the March 8th, 1971, TUC Conference then the LCDTU was left with no-one even to apply pressure to. Now a new stage of the struggle is starting. The LCDTU can still act as the focus for rank and file struggle in the trade unions. Its success however will depend entirely on how much it gives up the game of pressure politics and instead sets out to organise itself in every area as a united front of all those who want to defend the trade unions not simply in words but in actions.
The correct tactic is definitely the work to rule. If you don't work in the rail you can't know what this does. The freight-yards are still full up even now (May 25) as a result of the two short spells of work to rule earlier. There's tremendous chaos and disorganisation. But as far as we are concerned, if it wasn't for the Act, we could work to rule for ever and a day. It must be seen as the first turn on the screw, with the strike as the ultimate weapon.
You can say it's virtually a strike as far as the effect it has. For example, they cancel all freight trains for a start to provide more passenger trains, because they want to pretend to the public that it's not having the effect it is. And here in the Thames Valley for instance, there's no trains at all because they are run purely on overtime.
Now us drivers, we don't do overtime anyway, except on Sunday. One major factor in this work to rule has been the NUR Signalmen. When those boxes are open, it's ASLEF and other grades like guards, shunters etc. who carry forward the work to rule. But it's the singnalmen who have stuck strictly to the 8hour day that's ensured the action is a success. Just one thing else. The government and the papers all said that the railwaymen wouldn't find it as easy as the miners, because the miners all live in communities, while the railmen are isolated at home. In fact this just isn't true. The footplate men are nearly all related-for instance I've got eight brothers-in-law at