[page 17]
The Battle for the
35- hour week
By Phil Frampton
[Chairman Labour Party Young Socialists]
POPRS, 80HRE. 8TANRE.. KO
RJ B
35 MAS JES!
polu
MET. NO.
3350,000.000
PROFIT EQUALS
3S Hase WEEr
Post Office workers on the march On November 21st, 1978, 87% of steelworkers in the German IG Metal Workers Union voted for strike action on their claim for a 5% wage increase and a 35-hour week. Within 8 days, 37,000 were on strike and 28,000 locked out by belligerent employers who were determined to resist IG Metal's demand for 35-hours.
Tired of weeks and months of short-time working and an industry losing 1,000 jobs each month, these workers have shattered the myth of the cosy rapprochement between workers and big business in Germany. 160,000 workers took part in demonstrations on December 12th and bus workers struck in support of the steelmen.
Their action has laid down in no uncertain terms, the path which the workers' organisations must follow if they are to be victorious in the battle against the threat of unemployment. For all that has been written about the backwardness of the German workers, it is in stark contrast to the failure so far of the British union leaders to organise an effective campaign around the demand for the 35-hour week
Even more, these workers
demonstrated the possibility of uniting the workers of all countries in concrete action for the basic demand of a limitation to the working week, thus combatting unemployment and taking a major step forward in the struggle to harness the gains of hundreds of years of developing science, technology and education to the aspirations of the working classes for social and intellectual development.
On April 28th, 1978 even a half-hearted campaign by the European TUC resulted in 15 million industrial workers throughout Europe taking industrial action in support of the shorter working week. This mighty illustration of the latent power of the workers' movement (which significantly was largely ignored by the British media) spelt out what an irrepressible force rests in the hands of the workers organisations once the leadership is prepared to use it.
If the bosses are so absolutely adamant that Britain cannot afford a 35-hour week without cuts in wages, then why bother fighting for it? —is the response of a few leaders of the labour movement The answer has come from Jack Jones,
former leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union who once calculated that the present output of the British economy could be maintained on the basis of a 19-hour week, if unemployment was abolished and if all the spare resources were used. Likewise during the 1974 Tory government's 3-day week industry managed 80% of production, which would suggest that in 4 days, production would have been higher than today! Bob Smillie (President of the Miners Federation in 1918) once said 'we can produce enough in less than a six hour day if we were not producing to make millionaires."
It is not a case of Britain being unable to afford it, it is merely that the employers wish to protect their interests. What the employers' screams make clear is the bankrupt nature of their miserly rule over Britain and the crying need for a planned system of production.
The very same screams went up when Tom Mann and Eleanor Marx led the struggle for the 8-hour day in the 1880's and previously when the 10-hours Bill was introduced in 1847 to offset the revolutionary mood of the time.
9
[page 18]
The capitalists would have men
work a 25-hour day if they could get
away with it. As late as the 1840s
they were standing by as young
children dropped dead after 24-
hour stints in the textile mills.
As Marx pointed out, the logic of
capitalism is to secure the longest
possible working day to achieve the
maximum profit in the quickest
time. Additionally, in the cut-
throat profit system individual
capitalists are forced to continually
seek after new techniques and more
productive machinery in order to
gain advantages over their compet-
itors. Machinery becomes both
physically and technically
obsolescent. Rapid technological
development in the computer industry means an employer has to
try and use his machines 24-hours a
day because they will soon be
outmoded.
It is only the intervention of the
working class, organised and ready to do battle that has secured a reduction in the working week. Today,' a labour movement far stronger, especially if it is united internationally, has the power to win the 7-hour day worldwide. But to date the battle has been one of isolated struggles, of the German metalworkers and the British Post Office Engineers, of the Belgian carworkers and the British Firemen. If the TUC were to carry out its own decision and mobilise the 12 million workers at its disposal, would the bosses still be able to afford it?
While still in the midst of a recession, the French workers mobilised in 1936 to win the programme they had elected the Blum Popular Front Government to carry out. Faced with a wave of occupations and strikes by 2½ million workers, the employers were impotent (at that stage) as the Popular Front legislated for a 40-hour week. Such is the power of the masses to change the accounts of the employers! Of course, this concession was given to head off a revolution where the employers might have lost everything. Since that time they have pushed the average French worker back to a 42-hour week.
Under capitalism, shorter hours is
the
battle for ceaseless
struggle. While the trade unions
can win an agreement limiting the
basic hours to be worked in the
week, workers are forced to work
longer hours as overtime, if real
wages are cut. Thus between 1975
and 1977 the number of hours
worked by the average male
manual worker in Britain rose from
43.6 hours to 45.7 hours. Indeed in
the eighteenth century when capit-
alism was less developed, the
employers, complained that the
workers would only do four days
work 'unless provisions were short'
and resolved to pay the workers less
money to force them to work an
extra day!
Denis Healey
Here again it is the strength of the labour movement in demanding decent wages which will determine whether the workers need to work longer hours.
The international demands for the introduction of a shorter working week-in Europe, America and Australasia-herald a new era for the labour movement and a sharpening of the struggle over unemployment. It directly raises the need for class action to banish the threat of mass unemployment.
The faint-hearts within the working class organisations have already queried the raising of the demand for a 35-hour week at a time when the international capitalist class is attempting to bring in counter reforms rather than reforms. The capitalist's forecasters have all accepted that world trade will only grow very slightly in the forseeable future, at a rate of 4-6% a year as opposed to the growth rate
17
of 12-
boom.
such a
suffice
down.
This is very much evident to the
British ruling class. "We are
convinced that we are now not so
much in recession as in a new
'normal' period where industrial
growth will be much slower than it
was," said Charles Villiers, British
Steel boss, apologising for his
industry's measly investment plans
('The Times' 24/11/78).
The enormous problems created
by this world slowdown, especially
magnified in Britain's case, have
forced a change in attitude of the
financiers and industrialists. They
bay and howl at any concessions
made by the Labour government to
the workers. In these conditions,
the demand for a 35-hour week
with no loss of pay does not escape
their category of 'preposterous
suggestion' and unthinkable ref-
orms.
In May, 'The objections.
"The principal methods of work-sharing..are likely to push up labour costs...if labour costs rise, this will reduce the competitiveness of British exports...If trade union leaders are really serious about cutting dole queues, they must begin to view a move to reduced working time as a substitute for a pay increase "
Their philanthropic demand to the workers amounts to; 'workers either accept low wages or high unemployment.' But in recent times the British workers have had both! Between January 1974 and January 1977, unemployment rose by 812,000. Between 1975 and 1977 £8,000 million was cut from public spending and, according to the Treasury, real wages fell by 11%.
Nor has the mini-boom between 1976 and 1978 altered the determination of big business to erode workers' wages.
Despite North Sea oil and the wage cuts of the last few years, British industry is still in a terrible state. In November, Denis Healey said that 10% of British industry was comparable in performance with its foreign competitors and 70% was worse! Consequently their
4% during the post-war They readily concede that low level of growth will not
to bring unemployment
Times set out
[page 19]
is continuing pressure and public spendi increase productivity.
Thus at a time of general slowdown in the world economy, with employers trying to squeeze the workers, we have the prospect of the working class taking up demands for a major reform, as the 35-hour week is. The last year has seen a resurgence in the confidence of the working class internationally following the crisis of 1975 when world production fell for the first time since world War 2.
This is due largely to the fact that there has been a small economic upswing. Japan in 1978 will probably turn out to have had a growth rate of 5%, West Germany, 32%, the USA a growth rate of 4% and Britain attained a lowly 2½%. Almost all the major capitalist countries have seen an increase in the combativity of the workers (as reflected in strike figures).
But the key factor in the emergence of the 35-hour week demand is that despite renewed growth there has been only a small fall off in the levels of unemployment since the last recession. Unemployment remains at a chronic level even in those countries which have fared much better than Britain. In the USA, 5% are out of work. In West Germany in June '78 930,000 were on the registers, in France, 1.047.000 and in Japan, 1,240,000. Belgium had 8% unemployed and Britain 6%.
It is a similar situation to that of Britain 1918-21 when a boom coupled with high unemployment laid the preconditions for the renewed battle for the 8-hour day. Railway workers and cotton workers were among those who were victorious, while the miners went a step further, threatening to strike for a six-hour day.
The British TUC's first response to the problems of the 1970s was indeed to demand a 35-hour week (1972 Conference). Some of the sections of the engineering workers in the Newcastle area fought on this demand and won a one hour cut in the working week. But the central aim of the organised workers in the early 1970s was first defence against the attacks of the Tory government, then on to the political offensive, to
to ng
cut wages
and to
LPYS lead the fight against unemployment
overthrow the reactionary Tory government and replace it with a Labour government which they hoped would satisfy their aspirations. After battles unprecedented since the days of 1926, the Tories were removed. With Labour in power the working class held back its industrial activity hoping and trusting that Labour would solve the crisis and reduce unemployment.
Since that time unemployment has continued to rise. The past four years demonstrated that unemployment is not the 'typhoon' which Michael Foot spoke of but a living horror-story which is here to stay so long as capitalism continues. On March 13th, 1978, Jim Callaghan spelt out the Labour leadership's impotence. "Despite the fact that we have done more than any other country in Europe and can keep introducing palliatives as we like, I can see no basic solution to the problem".
In one sentence, import tariffs, the job creation schemes, the £25 million a day subsidies to private companies, wage restraint and the Employment Protection Act, were dismissed as totally ineffective in withstanding the capitalist onslaught on workers' jobs.
This only confirmed the experience of 1976-77, a period of slow growth, but a period of rationalisation when the capitalists, in order to restore their rate of profit, were forced to try and cut away at the unprofitable sectors of the economy. Indeed the Bank of
18
England Quarterly Review illustrates that despite the climb back out of the recession, the amount of spare capacity in British industry actually increased. For the workers this meant 1,275,000 redundancies. (March "76-April "78, Dept. of Employment Gazette)
Niether has the picture changed since 1977. Merseyside alone lost 19,000 jobs in the first months of 1978. A Guardian reporter estimated unemployment in the Kirkby area of 50%! Factory after factory was closing down, government aid or not.
Or to take Wales, seasonally adjusted unemployment rose from 5% to 8% between 1975 and 1978. An estimated 10,000 jobs will have been lost by 1979 in the steel industry alone.
Whether in steel, printing, motor vehicles, telecommunications, aircraft, shipbuilding, on the railways or behind an office desk, every workers has been warned that his job may be next to go. So too, his very power to light for increases is threatened by the increasing army of unemployed. Despite the autumn wage battles, many workers, eg., in Vauxhall and the aircraft industry settled for low wage rises, with their eyes fixed on the lengthening dole queues.
A simple cry has come up from the workers. "If you employers, financiers and capitalist politicians cannot create new jobs to reduce unemployment let us workers share out the jobs we have without loss in pay "
[page 20]
Faced with an intransigent ruling industrial class, the question of action will be posed.
In the past the 35-hour week was sometimes in used negotiations with management as a bargaining counter perhaps to be dropped at the first objection from management. But today it has bren hoisted to become the main demand alongside that for wage increases. The TUC has called on all its member organisations to campaign for the 35-hour week.
It was the dispute in the Post Office during the middle of 1978 which highlighted both the threats and the possibilities inherent in The meteoric technology.
new technological advances made in the telecommunications industry, such as the introduction of 'System X' in the telephone exchanges, poses a threat to tens of thousands of jobs. The Post Office has refused to give any guarantee of jobs past the next five years! Thus a union with members who previously lagged behind in industrial militancy, the Post Office Engineering Union, was drawn into action around the demand for a 35-hour week to protect jobs.
Area after area took to overtime bans and strikes in order to force the hand of management. When the men were on the verge of victory the union leadership signed an agreement with the Post Office, which, though it agreed a 37½ hour week, was on the basis of a disastrous productivity deal. The rise in unemployment is explained mainly by the slower provision of new jobs rather than the faster destruction of old jobs. Andrew Glyn explained the issue in 'Militant' no. 409:
"...the fundamental point is that investment in new equipment does not itself cause loss of jobs. Certainly in the context of a stagnant market, investment will tend to have that effect, as new capacity, which can produce more cheaply and which employs fewer workers, drives out older plant...In Japan for example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the industrial capital stock grew at 12.5% a year, three times as fast as the British... But far from meaning that employment grew slower, it grew at 3.7% a year in Japan and not at all in Britain."
In the high technology telecommunications industry itself, Britain's share of the world market has fallen from 25% in 1963 to 6% today. Likewise with the microelectronics industry.
It is precisely for this reason that the government recently announced at the end of 1978 that £100 million would be put into developing the microcircuit industry. However this to spend in is a meagre sum developing this industry. Referring to the introduction of new computing techniques, the Departrient of Industry in a confidential report, according to the Financial times (14/11/78) said: "there is a grave risk that more vigorous and better integrated policies for the sectors in other countries... will lead to the UK being overtaken. This could result in a loss of jobs even worse than that to be expected in any case from increased computer-based automation." In other words, it is death' for British progress or industry, as it is for its competitors. The task is clear, to make new technology act in the interests of the working class.
Notably, in the print industry, the press barons have preferred to withold new machinery rather than contemplate work-sharing. In the fierce confrontation at 'The Times', the owners demanded an enormous sacrifice for the introduction of new machines and forced the unions into a corner. Similarly in New York, Rupert Murdoch led the Newspaper Publishers Association into a dispute lasting three months in trade an attempt to secure union agreement over a halving.of the labour force.
With the rapid growth conditions of the post-war boom at an end and technology still in the hands of the capitalists, trade unionists have been left in no doubt as to the prospects that technological progress holds out for their jobs. The same Department of Ind ustry report (see above) predicts 2.5 million to 3.5 million (ie. 10% to 15%) unemployment with the introduction of new computer techniques. One Professor Stonier has estimated that the micro-pro- 19 ALL WE SEEK HOUR WEEK!
cessor will lead to only 5% to 15% of Britain's present workforce being necessary "to supply all our material needs"! Robot welders in the car factories, fully automated warehouses and coal mines are all an indication of the way in which labour can be replaced. New technology opens up both a vista of the potential transformation of men's life or monstrous levels of unemployment and poverty such as history has never seen before. The stage is set for enormous confrontations. Aware of the likelihood of the organised resistance to further redundancies the ruling class are preparing. In preparation for future battles they have pushed the Criminal Trespass Law and Prevention of Terrorism Act through Parliament giving them powers to deal with factory occupations and union activists. An indication of their changed attitude was shown in the period The Times'
prior to lock-out and by the lock-out itself. They went even to the extent of changing the locks on the doors in their attempt to stop any possibility of a mass sit-in!
So too the working class have been limbering up with the POEU dispute, the Firemen's struggle for a 42-hour week and the overtime
[page 21]
ban which was called for January Ist by the Boilermakers Union whose members will be severely hit by a proposed 15% cut in jobs.
The Ford's dispute also provided a glimpse of the strategy of the employers who categorically turned down the unions' claim for 35-hours. However, an indication of the pressure for shorter hours appeared even as late in the strike as the 7th week, Ron Todd. T&GWU National Organiser still came out of the negotiations declaring a failure to agree not only on wages but also on hours. And though at the end of the long strike the majority of men were ready to go back with the 17% wage increase, the stewards at the Halwood plant recommended rejection of the deal mainly on the basis of the failure to win the 35-hours.
Notably in those countries where living standards are higher and have not been eroded to such a degree as in Britain over the last few years, the issue of hours has come more to the fore. The struggle of the German steel workers has led to the ruling Social Democratic Party giving a commitment to
support the 35-hour week.
Struggle
The Belgian workers have already battled and won a shorter working week in the engineering plants, in large stores, in the petroleum industry, in Volvo. ITT and Phillips.
For the British workers, 1978 witnessed just the beginning of a movement which will grow and intensify in the coming years. The prospect of another recession by the end of 1979 or 1980 makes the need for action even more acute. Already the Labour Party National Executive and the TUC have been pressured to take up the leadership of this campaign. If this pressure is successful and the Labour Party were to pledge in its manifesto a commitment to the 35-hour week, it would lay the basis for drawing workers and unemployed together for a resounding election victory.
Such a struggle would point the way to the workers of Britain taking control of society, of industry and commerce in order to ensure tha
all society's resources are used for the benefit of the working people in a rational way. More so, it would bring home to every worker the common link between himself, the workers of Britain and the workers of the world.
It was around the simple demand for the 8-hour day that Marx sought to construct an international bond of the working class, a preliminary condition for the ending of class rule.
"Even under the most favourable conditions all serious success of the proletariat depends upon an organisation that unites and concentrates its forces; and even its national organisation is still exposed to split on the disorganisation of the working classes in other countries, which one and all compete in the market of the world, acting and reacting the one upon the other. Nothing but an international bond of the working classes can ever
ensure their definitive triumph." (Report of the 1868 Brussels Congress of the First International)
Capitalism's development of production and new technology has created enormous possibilities for mankind. A Britain under workers control and management could immediately cut the working week to give workers the time for education, for leisure and for running the affairs of the state. In 1919 when the Bavarian workers took power in Bavaria, Lenin's first advice to the Soviet was to introduce a 6-hour day to give the workers time to run the other aspects of society. With today's technology, a 20-hour week or 4-hour day would be an immediate possibility freeing the workers for the planning and construction of a socialist society in which all his social and material needs could be met.
BRITAIN 13 Issues... $2.90
ET
tant
26 Issues... £5.00 52 Issues...$11.20
EUROPE [Airspeeded] 26 Issues... $£6.10 52 Issues...$12.20
REST OF WORLD [Airspeeded] 26 Issues... £7.10 52 Issues...£14.20
Name...
Address.
Make cheques payable to MILITANT and return to the Circulation Department, MILITANT, 1 Mentmore Terrace, London E8 3PN. Bulk orders available, sale or return.
20
[page 22]
INTERNATIONAL
STION
IRAN
The sudden and rapid undermi ling
of the Shah'sregime in Iran by the year-long tremendous wave of struggles which have swept the country have terrified the bourgeois internationally with the prospect of revolution. For years it seemed that the Shah's regime, propped up by immense oil wealth, which bolstered a well equipped army and the dreaded SAVAK secret police, was capable of resisting any opposition which developed. But despite this appearance of power, beneath the surface enormous contradictions were building up inside Iran which were eroding the foundations of the regime.
The growth of the oil revenue led to a tremendous development of Iranian industry, which accelerated after the 1973 jump in oil prices. Iran's Gross National Product grew by 33.9% in 1973/4 and in 1974/5 by 41.6%! Industry also grew rapidly and with it the size and strength of the working class. In developing the productive forces the regime prepared its own grave diggers in the form of the mighty proletariat. Since 1962 the number of people living in towns doubled to reach 50% of the population; Teheran the capital, increased its size from 3 million in 1968 to 5 million in 1977. Between 1956 and 1978 the number of workers employed in industry increased from 1,290,000 to 3,700,000, compared to 3,400,000 in agriculture out of a total employed population of 10,340,000! Not only has the working class enormously expanded, is also very young; in
many factories the average
unskilled workers is 20.
But while there was a
tremendous growth in industry, so
also did all the social
contradictions: Inflation rocketed
and provided the background to
the development of colossal unrest in 1977. In 1977 the general inflation rate was 30% while in the
year up to May 1977 the cost of
food was up by 36%, and
housing shot up by 55%. Even foreign businessmen were
complaining that an 'ordinary' two
bedroom flat in Teheran cost
between £300 to £500 a month,
while for workers the situation was naturally even worse. The cost of a room with shared kitchen and bath could be £100 a month, as much as 60% to 70% of a worker's wage!
Despite plans to build 200,000 homes a year, the actual number built was 100,000 in five years.
On top of these appalling conditions the Government announced in 1976 a programme of retrenchment. The Shah, interviewed in 'Kayhan' in October 1976 said: "We have not demanded self sacrifice from people. Rather we have covered them in soft cotton wool. Things will now change. Everyone shall work harder and should be prepared for sacrifices in the service of the nation's progress" An example of this approach, according to the Shah, was that workers could no longer expect their traditional year-end bonus if their company was not making a profit.
This policy met from the working
with class
resistance in a series
21
of strikes as they became conscious of their growing strength. At first the regime was able to contain this movement by use of its repressive apparatus, but this was only at the expense of making it plain that in Iran any struggle, for even a small reform, became a political fight with the dictatorial regime. In this way the dictatorship's own measures, along with the appalling poverty, prepared the ground for the current mass upsurge. Thus the most widespread demands of the Iranian workers have been 'Down with the Shah', as the Shah has come to symbolise both the existing order and the repression.
In the face of a growing mass opposition to the Shah the leaders of both the Stalinist powers and imperialism have sought to prop him up (shown for example in the birthday greetings the Shah received from Carter, Brezhnev and Chairman Hua). Only now, as the opposition has grown even bigger and the Shah's position looks untenable, has imperialism begun to toy with the idea of sacrificing the Shah as a token concession aimed at preserving its interests in Iran.
The support for the Shah has not been purely because of a philanthropic wish to preserve one more monarch before the entire species becomes extinct but out of the fear that the overth ow of the Shah would open the doers to the development of a movement directed against capitalism.
Already at the time of writing schemes are being laid for the formation of a civilian government
[page 23]
including leaders of the liberal capitalist National Front. The National Union of National Front Forces is a coalition of 'moderate opposition forces" (Le Monde) such as the Iran Party, led by Shapur Bakhtiar the ex-general manager of the big French-Iranian company Aalam, and the Mellat Iran (Iran Nationalist Party). The National Front's leader Karim Sanjabi has continually stressed that he is prepared to come to terms with the Shah. But at the same time when under pressure from the masses he has also had to say that there can be 'no compromise" with the Shah (Financial Times 11/11/78). Yet only five days after this statement it was widely rumoured that he was in discussions with the Shah under the cover of being apparently arrested — on how to set up a 'constitutional' monarchy.
The Times has already commented on the moderate leaders' suitability for taking over the role of the protector of capitalism if the Shah falls. Its editorial on 8/9/78 praised how the 'religious leaders in the Iranian Liberation Movement and the heirs of Mossadegh grouped in the
National Front, have consistently refused to collaborate with
Marxists'. Yet in spite of this
attempt to reassure imperialism
about the future in Iran the
Observer had earlier quite
accurately spelt out the bosses
difficulties because the Shah's
dilemma is that if he further
unscrews the lid of the pressure
vessel and agrees to genuinely free
elections, he may release forces he
cannot control. If he does not, his
elections will be seen as a sham,
and the already troublesome
opposition will take to the streets
again, to provide another sort of
ungovernability." (13/8/78)
The mere fact that the
opposition movement appears at
this stage under the religious
leadership of the Moslem priests
(Ayatullahs) does not mean that it
is either reactionary or that the
movement cannot develop into a
wider struggle to eliminate
capitalism. The 1905 Revolution in
Russia began with the mass
presentation of a petition to the
St. Petersburg Winter Tsar in Palace. The petition had been organised by a priest, Father Gapon, who moreover was most probably a police agent! Yet in spite of this the shooting down of that march by the Tsar's troops was the spark which ignited the revolution. In the same way the religious demonstrations and shootings in Qom at the beginning of 1978, coming after a period of mounting struggles and protests by workers, students and intellectuals, were only the catalyst which brought to the surface the tensions which had been building up below for some time.
But the central difference between Iran and Russia, even in 1905, is that no independent workers' party, as yet, has developed, capable of putting forward an independent policy for the working class around which it could unite and lead the rest of the Iranian masses in the struggle against capitalism. The fight against the Shah and for democratic rights is a struggle for clearing away the repressive obstacles to the fight for the winning of decent living standards and conditions, which will inevitably develop into a struggle against the capitalist system itself.
This is the reason for the ruling class's fear and why the preparations are being made for some token concessions which they hope will defuse the situation and remove the threat over capitalism's future in Iran. They hope for a socalled 'Spanish Solution' to the Iranian Crisis. Yet it is plain to see that the granting of a few democratic rights in Spain has only
served to strengthen the workers organisations and not remove the workers' willingness to struggle.
The Iranian workers have shown time and time again their power to extract concessions out of the regime — such as the over 25% wage increase, and their bravery in the face of Army and police bullets. At the same time they are becoming more and more conscious of their strength. The rapid spread of the stay-in strikes throughout all sectors of the economy after the massacre of September 8th demonstrated the power of the working class and their growing understanding of where their power lay. The success of the strikes in both winning some concessions and paralysing the economy increased the workers confidence to once again take to the streets against the Shah and his supporters at the end of September. This resulted in the burning down of the British Embassy, as the Iranian masses answer to Owen's support for the regime.
At the same time the strength of the mass movement has increasingly had an impact on the Army conscripts, with some soldiers standing by as demonstrators attacked symbols of the Shah and the capitalists.
Others refused to fire at the crowds and consequently been summarily shot by their officers. This has shown that the Shah cannot rely on
most of the 220,000 strong armed
forces and is using the 70,000
strong gendarmerie outside lehran
and in the capital the regular
soliders of the Imperial Guard and
a special forces brigade which are
MILITANT
IRISH
MONTHLY
The Marxist Paper
for
Workers' Unity
and
Socialism
Copies from Middle Abbey
Dublin 1
6 issues...81p 12 issues...£1.62
[page 24]
considered "politically reliable'
unlike the mass of conscripts.
Yet in December reports have
appeared in the British press that
some crack Imperial Guard troops
have mutinied and shot their
officers.
In the face of the opposition of
virtually the whole population to
him and his regime it is extremely
doubtful that the Shah can survive
the present crisis.
Indeed the bourgeois press in
Britain has openly reported that
the main pre-occupation of the
Shah is how best to depart from
the scene while retaining intact the
basis of his regime. Various
proposals have been floated
including the suggestion that his
son should replace him.
But such is the mood of all
layers of the population that this
"solution" seems highly unlikely.
Indeed even the army tops are
reported to be divided as to what
to do. One section still supports
the Shah while another wants him
to abdicate for fear that the army
will soon break in their hands with
the ordinary soldiers ready to go
over to the side of the
demonstrators.
All the conditions for revolution
exist in Iran. The bourgeoisie is
divided and doesn't know which
way to turn. One section of the ruling class has shown that it believes that the game is up by fleeing the country with an estimated 2,000 million dollars.
The middle classes in the towns and in the countryside have turned against the regime.
Above all the Iranian working class has shown unsurpassed heroic qualities in the past few months. No amount of bloodshed, tanks and the paraphernalia of repression has been able to prevent them from organising one general strike after another.
If a mass Marxist Party existed in Iran the socialist revolution would be a reality and the Shah would be in exile or standing trial for his crimes against the Iranian people.
This may still happen in the period opening up. Some sections of the bourgeois press have attempted to picture the movement in Iran as merely "holy war"
WORKERS DEMOCRACI
inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini.
Khomeini and Islam merely
provides a rallying point against the regime. (The Muslim religion
was the only legally permitted opposition to the Shah.) Khomeini has denounced 'Communism" and "Marxism". However, if a regime led, or inspired by him came to power in Iran this would be only a short interlude.
As the Times and other serious journals of capitalism have warned an "Islamic Republic" could be very quickly followed by a regime which would move sharply to the left. The departure of the Shah would open the floodgates even wider and allow the rapid organisation of a mass Marxist movement which could lead the masses in completely overthrowing Iranian landlordism and capitalism.
A bourgeois democratic regime would merely represent a problems of Iranian society. It would merely represent "democratic interlude" which would give way to either a viciously reactionary regime which would attempt to crush the Iranian workers and peasants or a radical government which would
23
nationalise industry and
and begin the planning
resources of Iranian society.
The struggle to win the masses'
economic and social demands will
inevitably develop
against
capitalism, which has already
demanded 'retrenchment' in Iran
and even in the richer advanced
capitalist countries of the West is
attempting to force through
lusterity programmes against a
ackground of mass unemploy-
lent. While concessions can
id will be won through the
ength of the workers struggles,
the bosses will continually attempt
to take back with the right hand
what they are forced to give with
the left. This is why in Iran, as in
Russia in 1917, the fight for the
masses' immediate demands is indissolubly linked with the need to overthrow the capitalist order.
The Iranian workers have already proved their ability to struggle. What is needed now is for this tremendous movement to be given a clear programme and direction by a leadership drawing socialist conclusions from the experiences of these struggles and of the working class internationally.
It is plain that the Shah's days are numbered and it is only a matter of time before the present regime collapses. The working class has already seen the power that it has both in the factories, the oil refineries, in the offices and on the streets. However as the immediate situation unfolds, more and more werkers will be drawing the conclusions from their struggles of the need for an independent workers' party with a Marxist programme, which will be able to lead the struggle for a Socialist Iran.
Already the events in Iran have shaken the whole area, which the Financial Times has described as a "tinder box". The overthrow of capitalism and landlordism in Iran would be an example which would set the whole of the Middle Eas and Indian sub-continent alight with the flame of revolution
the
of
land
the
Boh Labi
[page 25]
The carefully orchestrated applause which has greeted the acceptance of the new Spanish Constitution (Spain's seventh since 1812) cannot disguise the reality of the continuing crisis in Spain.
The referendum to approve the Constitution exposed the tensions existing in Spain with a national average abstention of 32%, which rose to 56% in the two key Basque provinces of Guipuzcoa and Vizcaya. This was a mark of the opposition to the Government and particularly to the Constitution's failure to guarantee the national rights of the Basque people.
grant a certain democratic i.
The new Constitution, while
at the same time gives the king a "central role as arbiter, mediator, a fount of loyalty" and will 'in practice permit him an important area of behind-the-scenes manoeuvre" (Financial Times 6/12/78). The King's functions include approval of laws, convening and dissolving Parliament, calling reterendums and naming the Prime Minister. If after two months a Prime Minister nominated by the King has not won a vote of confidence in the Congress, then Parliament is dissolved and new elections held. The new Constitution puts the King in a position above Parliament where he can become a figurehead of reaction in a time of crisis. Thus it represents a shift towards a more 'democratic' form of Bonapartism by the Spanish ruling class.
The Constitution declares that "free enterprise in the context of a market economy" (ie. capitalism) is the basis of the Spanish society. In addition it gives the employers, for the first time, the legal right to lock out workers. While the Constitution permits strikes, in the section on collective bargaining it does not even mention the words 'trade union'
SPAIN
Police in the wings
The Constitution is in fact an attempt to preserve a Bonapartist state in Spain, giving the Government and the King powers to act without Parliamentary approval. Under it the Government retains the right to promulgate legislation by means of administrative decrees. But this attempt by the Spanish ruling class to preserve for itself repressive powers to use later against the working class will not help it to weather the approaching storms in Spain.
The sharpening clash of interests between the Spanish bourgoeisie and the working class, despite the workers' leaders clear wish to arrive at some accommodation, was revealed in the failure to reach agreement on a new Moncloa Pact. The Government and the CEOE (the Spanish CBI) want wage increases this year held to 12½%, but the trade unions demanded 162%, while inflation in 1978 was 17%. At the end of 1978 the Government imposed an 11-14% wage ceiling, which the unions rejected demanding a minimum 16% wage increase and shorter working hours.
In spite of the inflation from 30%
lowering
17% and
24
surprise balance of payments surplus last year, the general appraisal of even capitalist economists is that this was the "result of a fortunate combination of events and something of a once-and-for-all phenomenon" (Financial Times 13/12/78). Even this was only achieved by a momentary squeeze resulting in the rocketing of unemployment to over a million (according to the official government figures) out of a 13.3 million strong workforce, a sharp rise in company bankruptcies and a fall in investment.
The main strategy of the Government is to reduce the working class's share of the wealth it produces thereby increasing profits and, hopefully, stimulating investment. Investment inside Spain has been falling since 1974 while the export of capital from Spain has jumped; in the first nine months of 1978 it totalled $550 million. The ruling class, fearful of the workers' strength, has sought to use the workers' leaders to 'control' their members through the 'Moncloa Pact. In the words of the state economic agency CEDIN this involves "holding down the cost of labour-through wages as well as
[page 26]
National Assistance—and
of monetary austerity."
But in spite of the workers'
leaders acceptance of the Moncloa
Pact in November 1977 Spain has
been swept by a wave of struggles.
Workers have sought to use their
newly-won democratic rights to
make up for what they missed
during the years of dictatorship and
against the impact of the current
economic crisis. 1978 once again
demonstrated the power and com-
bativity of the Spanish proletariat,
not just on economic issues, but in
social and political struggles as
well. When for instance, the
Barcelona bosses attempted to
organise resistance to the new
labour law, which granted certain
concessions to the unions, over
800,000 workers in the area came out on strike in protest.
In the first six months of 1978, 3,170,000 workers, a quarter of the working class, were involved in strike action. This was 40,000 more than went on strike in the same period in 1976, which was a record year for strikes in Spain, involving in total over 5,500,000 workers.
Unemployment has been one of the major issues confronting the Spanish Labour Movement. The Government claims that unemployment is a million, while the Socialsit Party (PSOE) economists working in the National Statistics Office estimated that it really is 1,700,000, around 11% of the working population! In addition these PSOE economists have said that the Spanish economy would have to grow by at least 5% this year and next just to stop unemployment rising. Yet the Government thinks that the economy will grow at most by 4.8%.
This unemployment is not evenly spread across the country; the depressed regions like Andalucia and Estremadura have much higher levels. Parts of Andalucia, like Cadiz, Malaga and Seville, have official unemployment rates ranging from 14% to almost 16%. A recent survey by the Bank of Bilbao concluded that while the rich provinces were getting richer the poor provinces were getting poorer. In the face of this situation enormous movements have developed in Andalucia. Thus a day of
policy
protest action involved
out of the five million
live in the region.
But it is not only the grinding
poverty of some regions which is
fuelling the growth of the regional-
ist and nationalist movements in
Spain. The two important Basque
provinces of Vizcaya and Guipuz-
coa have per capita income double
the national average and three
times grealer than Andalucia. In
fact the economic growth in the
Basque country has strengthened
the working class and made it more
determined to struggle against the
long-standing national oppression
which the Basques have suffered
from the central government.
The tremendous development of
the national movements inside
Spain has resulted both from the
national oppression of the Franco
regime and the dead end which
Spanish capitalism finds itself in.
The leaders of the workers parties,
the PSOE and the Communist
Party (PCE), have co-operated with the capitalist Suarez Government and refused to support the right of self-determination for these regions. But super-imposed on the class oppression is the denial of the national rights—including the right of self determination-of the people of the Basque country. This has only increased the national feelings throughout the area.
The new Constitution gives the regions only limited powers subject to the ultimate control of the central government and quite categorically rules out the formation of a Federal state, let alone granting the right of self-determination. The Constitution lists 22 powers that may be transferred to the regions, ranging from promotion of culture to supervising hospitals. But at the same time it leaves open the question of where the money for these services will come from, particularly now at a time of economic crisis.
It has been the development of all these tensions, along with the unrest among the right-wing military and police officers. that has steadily undermined the position of the capitalist government of Suarez, the ex-general secretary of Franco's fascist 'party', the Movimento. This weakening of support was the
three million people who
25
reason why the municipal elections
were not held in 1978. In this
situation it was only the policies of
the PSOE and PCE leaders which
enabled the Suarez Government to
continue in office despite its
massive drop in support and build
up its 'democratic' credentials.
Events in recent months however
have shown that the workers
leaders have not been able to
restrain the working class any
longer. It has become increasingly
clear that enormous tensions are
building up inside the labour
moyement. Opposition to the
leaders' policies has shown itself
openly with section after section of
the PSOE, the PCE and the
PSOE-led General Workers Union
(UGT) and the PCE-led Workers
Commissions (CC.OO) rejecting
their leaders' policies. Expulsions,
especially in the PSOE and the
UGT, of dissidents have taken
place. A fall in membership of
these organisations as workers drop
out disappointed at the lack of
radical change brought about by
their leaders is also evident.
Between January and November last year the PSOE's membership
alone fell from 230,000 to 62,000 (Financial Times 30/11/78).
Yet despite this falling off in
membership of the PSOE, the general swing in Spanish society is towards the left. A mid-December opinion poll gave the PSOE 38.7% and Suarez's ruling Centre Democratic Union (UCD) 27.3%. When the PCE's support of around 15% is added it is clear that the workers' parties have at present the majority of support. This compares with the 34.3% the UCD and the 28.5% the PSOE won in the June 1977 General Election. This indicates the mass radicalisation which is occuring, while at the same time the more active layers of the working class are becoming more watchful and critical of the policies of the workers' leaders.
It is this overwhelming move towards the left that would have doomed the right-wing coup planned by the officers involved in the so-called 'Galaxy plot' last November. A military rebellion, at this stage when workers are confident of their developing strength, would only have provoked a mighty
[page 27]
working class movement in resistance. The majority of the officers and bourgeoisie saw the danger that such a resistance movement would develop into an attack on the foundations of their regime, in the same way as Spinola's attempted coup in March 1975 led to the nationalisation of 67% of the Portuguese economy. It was for this reason that the coup was stopped, although the widespread sympathy for the aims of the plotters can be seen in the facts that only two of the five main conspirators have been arrested and that at least 200 officers, while refusing to join the coup, did not report the plotters to the authorities.
The UCD Government is resting upon sand and could quite quickly collapse in the face of a big movement. It is clear that preparations are already being tentatively made for the possible formation of a coalition government embracing a section of the UCD, the PSOE and probably the PCE. Certainly the PSOE leaders have been pushing for a UCD-PSOE coalition, with themselves in a supporting role, and Felipe Gonzalez, the PSOE leader, has recently said that as "a last resort" in an emergency he would be prepared to join such a coalition.
Even with the new wage controls
the workers leaders are not
prepared to give a fighting lead
against the Government. The 'Guardian' reported that a TV
debate between the Economics
Minister, Fernando Abril, and the
CC.OO and UGT leaders, Mar-
celion Camacho and Nicholas
Redondo, held just after the
Government announced the new
wage limits was a "flop. Each man
expressed ably...his already well
known views, but there was no
clash of opinion. Doubtless there
had been some polite agreement
made between them before the
show". (30/12/78).
The March 1st General Election
is an attempt by Suarez to maintain
his support before it has been
undermined by the clashes over the
Government's wages policy, and to
'cash in' on the credibility which
the support he has had from the
PSOE AND PCE leaders have
given him. Suarez hopes to win a
majority in the General Election which would put him in a good position to win the Municipal Elections which are finally being held on April 3rd. Suarez has known "full well that the municipalities-staffed with appointees of the former regime, some of which have changed to UCD colourswould swing towards the Left" (Financial Times 13/12/78), which is why they have been delayed so long.
But in spite of these tactics, it is highly likely that Suarez's UCD will lose support and that the Socialist and Communist Parties will emerge with increased support-if not an absolute majority. This in turn could lead to the entry of the CP and SP leaders into a coalition government.
There could be no doubt whatsoever that a coalition would be totally incapable of solving the problems facing the Spanish working class. The only reason that the ex-fascist Suarez would be prepared to form a coalition is that the UCD Government was incapable of continuing in office with its presert policies without bringing in tre workers leaders in an attempt to hold the situation.
But at the same time enormous hopes would be raised among the broad masses by the entry of the
workers' leaders into the Govern-
ment. There would be the expec-
tation that this Government would
be able to achieve some significant
improvements in working people's
situation. But such a coalition
would be incapable of delivering
the goods. An alliance with a
THE SPANISH REVOLUTION 1931-37 By Ted Grant
Available from:
WORLD BOOKS Mermore Terrace
London E8 3PN p + 10p for posiag
26
capitalist party naturally means that the workers' leaders have to accept the implementation of capitalist measures-measures which are directed against the working class. Thus a coalition would serve to strengthen the opposition inside the labour movement to the leadership's policies, which was the reason Gonzalez gave to the Madrid paper 'El Pais' last October for his being at that time lukewarm towards the idea of a coalition.
The Spanish working class is steadily digesting the lessons of the past period and the more advanced layers are moving towards the ideas of Marxism, a progress which the leadership is trying to stop with expulsions. But administrative measures will not stop this growth of support for Marxism. The Spanish workers are testing out their leaders and organisations to see whether they are capable of meeting their needs. It is the depth of the crisis in Spain which is giving this process its explosive character. Despite the disappointment with the existing leadership there is no large scale turning away to alternative organisations. Thus in spite of the massive fall in PSOE's actual membership its broad support is still growing. When the struggle turns back again from the industrial plane to the political one there will be a renewed upsurge in support for the traditional workers'
parties, the PSOE and PCE, and inside of them a sharpening
struggle fore the Socialist policies
necessary to lead the Spanish
working class to victory.
*THE-SPANISH
[page 28]