by J. R. CLYNES Last year saw the re-entry of the mass of students into the class struggle. Not for two years, and probably not since 1968 had we seen such a large nymber of students together in struggle. From large scale activity in solidarity with the Irish revolution to occupations and demonstrations in support of the miners strike; from varied forms of struggle in defence of Student Union autonomy, to solidarity actions with workers against redundancies. In all this a continual choice was placed before the / students unions: on which side would they be in the class struggle? And in the main they chose the correct side. Thatcher, the college authorities, the LEA's and the Courts chose last year to begin a determined crack-down on the (relative) autonomy of students unions. No wonder that the revolutionaries began to organise and get a hearing amongst the mass of students. Under the banner of the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Student Unions (LCDSU), a line was drawn across all the reformist and collaborationist solutions to those problems which faced students either in society generally or immediately in the colleges.
What lessons are to be learned from last year? What perspective can be given to the many new students and to those who are looking for answers after the experience of last year?
RISE IN WORKERS' STRUGGLES First of all we have to realise that the context within which this upsurge in the colleges was occurring was quite different than say, in 1968. Direct action, mass demonstrations and occupations are no longer the privilege of students. On the contrary, the actions of the working class, especially over the past period, surpass anything that students have managed in this country. However, contrary to what might immediately be imagined, socialist students can have the biggest effect on the direction of these struggles by turning into the colleges not away from them.
MASS STUDENT ACTION In the miners strike, for example, lots of very useful and necessary work wasdone by the action of individual militants on the picket lines and in the villages. But the mobilisation of the students at the University of Colchester in occupation of their colleges to accommodate the flying pickets provided an early political lesson which had resonance in large sections of the working class. The need for active and mass solidarity with the miners was got across by this action much more surely than any amount of leaflets. This was the case, although less dramatically, with other student actions both then and in other struggles during the year. Workers at the University of Kent, for instance, were faced with a fight against redundancies. Through the occupation of the administration block in solidarity with this fight, revolutionaries were able to get across the basic message that workers should not be madé responsible for the problems of capitalism.
C.P. REFORMISM A Ithough these sorts of struggles were the most important last year, they were not the 'typical struggles. They were generalised only through a fight against the dominant trend in the leaderships of the students unions and the NUS - that of the Communist Party. For the latter, student struggles should be a mixture of bread and butter college issues plus anti- Tory protests and token support for workers' struggles. No attempt was made by the NUS executive to lead struggles which challenged the social funrcions of the colleges within capitalist soviety.
AUTONOMY STRUGGLE IS CLASS STRUGGLE The dominating struggle from the beginning of last year was the struggle over student union autonomy. Here the CP posed the question as simply a move from the reactionary forces in the Tory party. At the same time its emphasis was on defending students' "bread and butter' concerns like money for rugby and chess clubs. In this way a truly broad alliance was created by the C.P. including college authorities, LEA's and all progressive students'. However, whilst the college authorities and the LEA's were opposed to the particular form of the Tory attack, they were united amongst themselves and with the Tories on the defence of the social function of the colleges in higher education Students and miners at Colchester or Labour, were quite prepared to withhold grants from student unions or individual students. Similarly, college authorities despite their different political hues (Carter of Lancaster, the liberal; Miller of N.London Poly, the racist) also went on the offensive. They realised all to well that the development of higher education in line with the needs of British capitalism demanded the reintegration of students unions into the State either locally or nationally. Their differences were (and remain) only how not whether such a policy should be adopted.
Consequently last year was punctuated by what the C.P. referred to as "local' struggles to which the C.P. could only counterpose some abstract Fight against the Tories". In those rare cases where the NUS had to take some action, the whole thing was couched in terms of "fair play' or "academic, freedom'. And where the struggle was fought on different principles as at N Poly, the NUS deliberately scabbed, blaming the whole affair on the 'wreckers' of the LCDSU. The truth of the matter was that these "local' struggles were the fragmented manifestations of what should have been the real movement on the autonomy question. It was this which should have provided the basis for any alliance. The "bread and butter' question could only spread, as it did, confusion. REVOLUTIONARIES ARE WRECKERS But to "wreck' the cosy policy of the C.P. and fight for a correct strategy in the student field was indeed the reason for the formation of the LCDSU. What the IMG intended in initiating the LCDSU was to fight for a different understanding of politics. The framework for the C.P.'s politics is the fight to change governments and government policy; the revolutionary must start from the fight against capitalist social relations themselves. Clearly, a fight on this basis in the colleges is dependent on the balance of forces in society generally. It is a precondition then for any advance, even in the colleges, that students and student unions intervene actively in the class struggle. Consequently, one of the basic planks of the LCDSU was the need for the sharpening up of the student unions locally and the NUS nationally as instruments in the class struggle. The difference in the two strategies was clearly seen in the miners strike. Whereas the NUS leadership were content to pass a resolution of solidarity, the LCDSU was advancing the line its supporters carried out in Colchester. Comrades here actually challenged the social function of their college by turning all their resources in support of the miners. Again, whereas the NUS leadership considered the autonomy struggle as quite separate from that of the miners, the LCDSU took a large part of the January 23rd autonomy demo to demonstrate solidarity outside the National Coal Board offices, and consciously asserted the autonomy of student unions from the State by for instance voting large sums of money to the miners.
AGAINST THE TORIES AGAINST ANTI-TORYISM But the mass of students have not at all been won to follow this line consistently. In one respect this is not surprising since it cuts across the stream of the spontaneous understanding of students of their situation. The secret of the C.P.'s success is its ability to locate the lowest common denominator amongst all the heterogeneous layers of students and then inject the movement with a dose of popular anti-Toryism. There is only one problem with this and that is function of higher education and, especially in a period of large scale change, offers no way forward to combat this.
END OF AN ERA This year marks the beginning of a whole new period of planning in higher education. The Robbins era is over. There are extensive plans in the pipeline for a reorganisation, rationalisation and reorientation (so-called 'technocratic reform') on a scale not till now contemplated by the bourgeoisie. This whole enterprise is not just a technical question but requires political and ideological underpinning. Mrs. Thatcher made her first forays on this front last year. The problem as far as she saw it was not only the total inadequacy of the student union bureaucracies for controlling students but that student unions were, in a number of ways, being used as organised centres of resistance and for launching political movements. Her task was twofold: To break the influence of the revolutionaries and to integrate students unions into the college bureaucracies. She failed in her ill-prepared attempt last year but more proposals will be ready by the turn of this year.
By that time we must really have sharpened up the students unions and the NUS. Any notion that the root of the matter is the Tory government must be decisively scotched. The proposed week of activity by the NUS on this question should be seized as an opening to ram the correct message home. FIGHT THE TORIES:
FIGHT CAPITALISM This message must be that any struggle against the plans of the bourgeoisie in higher education can only be conducted as part of the class struggle as a whole. What this boils down to is that the bourgeoisie must be hit at their weakest point whenever and wherever that may be. It is the issue of most relevance to the class struggle at any particular time which must become the focus for all efforts to be concentrated upon - in particular those of students.
This is not to counterpose struggles inside and outside the colleges but to indicate within which framework they should be situated. Once this is decided then it would be sheer folly to disregard any gauntlet thrown down by the bourgeoisie in the colleges. It should be obvious to anyone that a defeat in the colleges would itself remove a large part of the forces which could be mobilised in the struggle outside the colleges themselves.
It is within this framework and perspectives that the struggle of last year can be a gain and that the struggles of students can become an integral part of the class struggle. It is this which can provide a perspective for a continuing struggle against the bourgeoisie whether in the form of the Torles, the college authorities, or anything else.
FOOTNOTE At a meeting of the steering council of the LCDSU on 25 September, called to prepare the intervention for the beğinning of term, the I.S. comrades on the steering council read a prepared statement announcing their withdrawal from the LCDSU on the grounds of a likelihood of a peaceful solution to the Thatcher proposals on antonomy rendering the LCDSU a hindrance to party building. The IMG considers that this short sighted move by the I.S. is a big set back to the organisation of the revolutionary forces in the colleges and to the winning of a revolutionary line amongst the mass of students. The IMG will decide its action in relation to this when the statement of the I.S. is formally received. We hope to be able to print this in the next
In these two articles, Jack Lewis examines the nature of the Housing Finance Act and the res PERIOD 3 - 1917-1972 *These figures mean that today, despite everthis way from the tenants of the former to