The Miners' Next Step, with a new introduction (Pluto Press, 20p)/Jenry Webb The pamphlet was originally published by the Unofficial Reform Committee, which was made up of rank and file miners in South Wales and emerged from the Cambrian Combine dispute of 1910-11. The Unofficial Reform Committee proved to be the precursor to a mass movement among miners, initially as the Reform Committees and later as the Miners Minority Movement.
The pamphler was itself an expression of the miners" frustration with the federal union structure in mining, with widespread nonunionism, and with the limitations this created in their fight with the coal-owners. To overcome these limitations the pamphlet proposed a scheme for the reorganisation of the miners" union, Primarily, this called for one miners"
toway Inis nas been fealisco in the National Union of Mine workers. In 1912, the South Wales Miners Federation represented all the South Wales county lederations within the Miners Federation of Great Britain, Today South Wales is a region within the NUM and the counties form the one arca.
The paraphlet also called for the expropriation of the coal industry and its management by democratic control Trom below. However there has since been a tendency to equate this too easily with nationalisation, whuch has unfortunately been seen at various times by many miners and their leaders as the solution to many of their problems. It remains true that there was some improvement in the conditions of employment. Yet this was the consequence of the miners' activity, and not of nationalisation.
Arthur Horner is quoted referring favourably to nationa lisation: The pamphlet put its finger on one of the difficulties that was to haunt us right up to the time the mines were rationalised, that the owners were able to silence trade union demands by proving that some wretched little colhery with a method of production aimost a century old would have to close down if the union's demands were accepted. (Incorrigible Rebel, pp. 19-20).
But the experience of nationalisation, particularly in the past fifteen years, shows that this problem was by no means an exclusive feature of private ownership. On many occasions in the recent past the miners have been told that tbe consequence of their demands would be to close pits, with a loss of jobs. During the 1972 national miners' strike, once more the same old story was trotted out. The militants around the Unofficial Reform Committee therefore observed that capitalism attempted to make the workers accept the responsibility for the running of industry, It reflects no credit on Horner, a former member of the Unofficial Reform Committee, a leading member of the Minority Movement and the Communist Party, and a former National Secretary of the NUM, that he should assume that a government act can change the nature of an industry. The mere act of nationalisation may have removed coal from private ownership, it did not and could not make it less capitalist. The pamphlet placed the emphasis of expropriating the industry upon the activity of the miners themselves, and not upon parliamentary acts. In so doing it rejoiced in the inventiveness and creativity of the working class. It exhibited an unashamed optimism in the ability of the class. Here are two lessons for the contemporary class struggle both as relevant as they were in 1912. The because of its effects. SYNDICALIST as Syndicalist. political strength of the working class remains to be fashioned from its overwhelming strategic industrial strength, Yet this potential strength is weakened by the industrial separateness and tendency to limil the struggle It was because of this concentration upon the industrial struggle that the pamphlet was characterised as Syndicalist. This view is offered in the new introduction, and was expressed in the following way in a review in Socalist Worker: 'The pamphlet's main weakness is its failure to consider the question of political, as opposed to trade union, organisation, and the role of a revolutionary party in the working class. It should not need restating here that the distinction between politics and trade unionism is not determined by where they take place. Yet it is precisely because of this distinction that the pamphlet is described Because the pamphlet was written at the time when Tom Mann was active it was lumped in with the consequences of his and other Syndicalist agitation. However, it is interesting to note that none of the authors of the pamphiet at any time indicated that they had read, or approved of, either Tom Mann or the Party Minors" flying pidcats at joint meeting with students American syndicalist Daniel De Lean. Further more one of them, Noah Ablett, subscribed to the idea of a handful of Marxiats active at every pit. This may not he formally: Leninist. Yet it is in embryonic form the Leninist model, When the pamphlet was produced quite understandably it failed to mention the revolutionary party. It was not until some five years later, after the Russian Revolution, that the Leninist party recommended itself The revolutionary party is necessary not only because of the power of the State and the unwillingness of the ruling cliss to abdicate their dominance. It is necessary hecause of the combined and uneven development of working class consciousness, which is complex and reflects many different attitudes. It is to the extent that The Miners' Next Step failed to make this differentiation that it was Syndicalist. Yet it is the failure to make this differentiation which also underpins the notion that a revolutionary party is a network of rank and file committees. No matter how valuable they may be they cannot be transformed into a revolu tionary party, and The Miners' Nexr Step did not project such a model. But some contem porary revolutionaries do!
both the Labour Party and the Communist