[page 5]
Britain
Britain: the real situation
''IN BRITAIN three-quarters of the population is working class. It is a purely proletarian country. It has a small handful of landlords and capitalists -they are very rich and powerful, it is true, but still they are only a handful.
'If MacDonald walked in Parliament, laid his programme on the table, rapped lightly with his knuckles, and said, 'Accept it or I'll drive you all out' (saying it more politely than I've phrased it here) - if he did this,
By Alan Woods
'THE OUTBREAK of the miners' strike has completely transformed the situation in Britain. Overnight, all the whimpering Jeremiads of those who had lost all faith in the working class have been confounded. The sweep of the movement, the outstanding militancy of the active layers, but above all the grim determination to "see the thing through" recall the bitter class battles of the '20s.
But this strike did not drop like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky. It could be predicted and it was predicted by the Marxist tendency from the pages of the Militant and the MIR as we affirmed—against all the pessimistic prognoses of the Labour leaders and the Hobsbawms, only a few months ago-that the Tory election victory was not the end of the matter, but that the workers, checked momentarily on the political plane, would inevitably move to the industrial front to fight for their class interests.
The special position of the miners within the British proletariat lends enormous weight to the present battle. But it could have been any other section of the class. What this strike reveals is a colossal accumulation of bitterness, frustration and anger within the working class. It is only the abysmal lack of leadership on the part of the TUC and the right wing, and their soft left allies on the NEC of the Labour Party which has prevented this generalised mood from acquiring an active and organised expression.
If it was up to the official leadership of the workers' organisations, we would by now be in a situation of full retreat before the vicious (and according to these sorry "leaders" unstoppable) onslaught of Thatcher and co. Their shameful role was shown in the Stockport Messenger dispute and the GCHQ affair. Like King Midas in reverse, everything these "practical" people lay their hands on turns to ashes.
The lesson of the present situation is clear: where the working class sees even half a lead, they are prepared to fight.
The example of Liverpool in this respect is still clearer than the miners' strike. In Liverpool, where
Britain would be unrecognisable in two weeks, Mac- Donald would receive an overwhelming majority in any election. The British working class would break out of the shell of conservatism with which it has been so cleverly surrounded: it would discard that slavish reverence for the law of the bourgeoisie, the propertied classes, and church and the monarchy." —Trotsky, speech to the Tblisi Soviet, 11 April, 1924
the Marxists of the Militant have had a major influence for a long period, the movement has now entered a new and qualitatively higher phase.
The argument of the Labour right (echoed pathetically by the spokesmen of the badly misnamed "Communist" Party) that it was necessary to water down the socialist programme in order to win over the middle class has been shown to be false to the core.
The magnificent fightback organised by the Liverpool Labour Party has captured the imagination of wide layers of the population, not only the working class, but also the youth, the old age pensioners, the housewives, the unemployed, and an important section of the middle class. This fact has been amply demonstrated in the splendid results of the local elections, discussed elsewhere in this issue. It shows the truth of what the Marxists have always maintained-that the mass of the middle class are not won by watering down Labour's programme but by boldly mobilising the working class to change society. And once again we see how this can only be done on the basis of firm leadership and clear socialist policies.
It would be highly instructive to compare the movement in Liverpool with the miners' strike itself. Both have had an enormous effect on the consciousness of the class, beginning with the active layers of the trade unions and the Labour party.
In Liverpool, despite opposition not only from the cabitais, presso, unfortunately from right wing
spokesman of the Labour leadership, the movement has been completely solid. The reason for this does not reside in the "peculiarities" of Merseyside, but in the role of a Marxist leadership which has prepared the ground thoroughly for this struggle by a lengthy campaign of explanation which has carried the message of the council to every nook and cranny of the population.
The marvellous miners' strike, on the other hand, has been constantly bedevilled by the failure to incorporate the more backward areas such as Nottingham into the struggle. This aspect of the strike constitutes a serious weakness which is largely the
4
[page 6]
'These young pickets, out in all weathers, far from home, taking on the massed forces of the police, facing arrest, beatings and Photo: John Harris IFL abuse from the media-this is the cutting edge of our class." reason for the protracted nature of the dispute. Nevertheless, all the hired hacks of the government have been taken aback by a factor which none of them had foreseen, and which is equally present both in Liverpool and the miners' dispute: the grim determination of the workers to see the struggle through to the end.
Maybe the problems facing the miners' dispute could have been avoided or minimised had the leadership pursued different tactics from the outset. But the fact remains that this strike, for all the difficulties, has completely cut across the situation. Together with Liverpool it is acting as a catalyst to crystalise the accumulated mood of discontent which has been steadily building up within the working class since the victory of Thatcher.
The role of the youth in these struggles has been decisive. These young pickets, out in all weathers, far from home, taking on the massed forces of the police, facing arrest, beatings and a constant stream of abuse from the media-this is the real cutting edge of our class. This is the salt of the earth. How can one look upon such things, and not be filled with confidence in the future?
What a contrast between this living reality of the class struggle and the dull, pedantic schemas of the Hobsbawms and the "upwardly mobile" fantasies of Neil Kinnock! Not so long ago, these people were lecturing us on how the young miners were not like their fathers and would not be prepared to fight! Now we see exactly the opposite of this smug (and quite imaginary) "realism"
• The miners' strike has now opened the floodgates, and all the other sections of the class are pushing their way through, including the so-called "YUPPIES"-teachers, civil servants, as well as railwaymen, dockers, nurses. The first four months of this year have already witnessed an increase in the number of strikes. The press is already fearfully anticipating a "long, hot (or cold!) summer" Ruling class Luddism There can be no doubt that the miners' strike was deliberately provoked by MacGregor at the instigation of Thatcher. It is clear that the strategists of big business have understood the key position that miners occupy within the working class, and have coldly decided to try to smash the NUM.
This fact alone illustrates at once the cynicism and the blindness of the British ruling class. In the 'fifties and 'sixties they closed hundreds of pits down when the price of oil was low, and then were taken completely off balance by the steep rise in oil prices after 1973. Now, incredibly, they are preparing to continue the decimation of the mining industry at the very time when discussions are taking place about what to do when North Sea oil runs out. The rulers of Britain are utterly incapable of planning for tomorrow. They understand nothing and foresee nothing. They are ignorant and effete moneygrubbers who place their narrow class interests before the real needs of the British economy and people. What a contrast with the old ruling class of the period of Britain's world ascendancy. Then they thought ahead, as Trotsky said, not in decades, but in centuries. Now they are incapable of thinking about tomorrow morning. Then their foremost leaders were great statesmen, Disraeli, Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George. Now they are stuck with a shopkeeper's daughter from Grantham who imagines 5
[page 7]
MIR June 1984;
it is possible to solve the most complicated problems of world economy and diplomacy with the mental efforts required for calculating the price of cabbage and broad beans. The comparison is sufficient to reveal the utter collapse of all Britain's former pretensions.
From the former workshop of the world, Britain has been reduced to a third-rate power whose importance in the scale of world politics is not much more than a Third World state. The fact that humiliation at the hands of Colonel Qadaffi could be paraded as a great moral victory is further confirmation of Britain's impotence in the world.
Lenin said that politics is "concentrated economics". The real reason for Britain's decline has been the complete undermining of her industrial base This, in turn, has not been the result of "lazy" workers or strikes, as the gutter press (and also the "quality" press) would have it, but because of the abject failure of the British capitalists to invest in British industry. This trend, which has gone on for decades, has been accentuated since Thatcher came to power.
There has been a complete collapse of Britain's manufacturing base. Since 1980, in the private sector alone, investment in manufacturing industry tell by one-third-much more than output and even more than the fall in employment. The Bank of England recently pointed out that over the past three years, investment in manufacturing has been so low that it has actually failed to keep pace with depreciation. In other words, the British capitalists have turned into parasites who are no longer interested in the development of productive industry. They look on with indifference while Britain's manufacturing base falls into ruin, with soaring unemployment, devastation of whole communities and the creation of industrial deserts.
This appalling state of affairs has found a "theoretical" justification in the person of Thatcher and her acolytes, who must surely be the most illiterate and near-sighted representative of the ruling class to occupy high office in the land. According to these people, "there is no alternative" to the wholesale destruction of industry. Instead, they propose a shift towards service industries, banking and tourism! This is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette's famous observation, when told that the people had no bread: "Let them sell ice-cream." Of course, such an idea is preposterous. Britain is an industrial nation, or it is nothing.
At the root of the philosophy of this government, and the class it represents, is the idea of using mass unemployment to drive down wages and, in this way, compete against their rivals abroad. But all history shows that a low wage economy will never compete
with one based on advanced technology and machinery. It is a recipe for catastrophe in the future.
Yet this "theory" has been gaily accepted even by the supposedly serious economic spokesmen of the ruling class.
The present "optimism" of the capitalists is bas-
ed on the ephemeral and artificial "boom" through
which we are passing. Last year productivity and, above all, profits rose by 6% in manufacturing. This phenonenon is due almost entirely to de-manning which has gone on apace throughout the last period, but hardly at all on re-tooling and re-equipping British industry. The real attitude of the ruling class towards the challenge of new technology is shown by the wretched figures of spending on research and development. The UK spends a lower fraction of its Gross Domestic Product on non-military research and development than any other EEC country, Japan or the USA.
The other side of the picture is a boom on the Stock Exchange and a major increase in company profits. Just glance at the financial pages of the "serious" press. Let us take a random example. On Friday 16 March, The Times contained the following headlines: "BUMPER COMPANY RESULTS LIFT SHARES TO RECORD 875.6" and "PROFITS POUR IN FOR SHELL AND BP". We shall not waste space going into all the details (for instance, BP's profits up by 55% and Shell's by 38%). Suffice it to say that this is not an exception, but fairly typical of the present situation.
The bosses are laughing all the way to the bank. But this "boom" or boomlet has not altered in the slightest degree Britain's rapid downward slide towards disaster. It is mainly a "boom" inside the pockets of the capitalists. There has been little or no improvement in industrial investment. Factories continue to close, albeit at a slightly reduced rate. Unemployment continues to grow. Even Edward Heath was obliged to point out recently that the government's revenue from North Sea oil was £9 billion a year and expenditure on unemployment amounted to £15 billion!
Yet the Tory "wets", like the TUC, Labour's right wing also the Tribune left have no real alternative to the Thatcherite madness. There can be no question of going back to the Keynesian methods of deficit-financing which failed in the past. These would only give rise to a new explosion of inflation leading to an even bigger collapse at a later date.
Under the capitalist system there is no way out for the working class. The crisis of capitalism creates intolerable conditions for the workers and their families. The really significant thing about the miners' strike is the way in which, spontaneously, through the experience of struggle, thousands of the best class fighters, first the youth, but increasingly older workers also, are beginning to draw revolutionary conclusions from the situation. This is a microcosm of a process which will affect every stratum of the working class in the turbulent period which we now enter.
Tories in disarray
Having decided that it was necessary to break the
miners' union once and for all, as the prior condition
for an all-out assault upon wages and living stan-
dards, the government was taken aback by the unex- 6
[page 8]
pected reaction of the miners. The placard carried on a recent demonstration summed it up in a grimly humorous slogan: "Grass Pie, Here we Come!" The miners and their families are experiencing terrible privations, even actual hunger. But far from being intimidated, their determination to hold out to the end is increased.
The NCB has argued that the terms for redundancy payments are very generous. According to their figures, a man aged 49 earning £165 a week will get £36,480. All the more striking, then, that the areas which have come out have remained so solid. This shows a very high level of class consciousness. What the Tories and MacGregor failed to understand was the radicalising effect of the strike once it got underway. Many workers who were initially opposed to the strike, once they began to participate, became transformed into the most active and selfsacrificing pickets. "Well, I'm against a strike. I just can't afford it," one miner was quoted as saying. "But once we're into it, well it's a different matter then." Once the workers join the strike, they begin to feel the power and unity of their class. They become a full head taller. And they learn more from one day of action in a strike than in ten years of normal, humdrum existence.
Thatcher was clearly counting on a decisive defeat for the miners, a kind of "industrial Falklands" which would strengthen her position in the Tory party. Now, all these calculations have been upset. The Tory Party which less than a year ago won such a resounding electoral victory, is now more deeply divided than at any time in the past. Exactly as we predicted immediately after the general election and were scoffed at by the wise-acres who saw nothing but doom and gloom ahead.
Against all the conventional wisdom of the Murrays, and Hobsbawms, we predicted that Thatcher would most likely be removed as leader of the Tory party.
And now what do we find? Even the capitalist press is openly commenting on the growing hostility towards Thatcher within her own party. This resentment reflects the impasse of the Tories. It was strikingly manifested in the recent speech made by Healey in the course of a debate in the House of Commons when, to the accompaniment of scarcely concealed chortles from Tory benches, he described Thatcher alternatively as Mephistophiles, "The Catherine the Great of Finchley", and even (indirectly) Hitler.
There are some primitive tribes which still worship idols. The idol is the work of a man's hand, hewn out of wood; painted and decorated. The man then falls on his knee before the idol, loudly chanting its praises, in the hopes of getting some practical benefits from the whole operation. But if, at the end of the day, the desired results are not forthcoming, the unfortunate idol is hurled from its pedestal, beaten with whips, cursed at and trodden underfoot. The attitude of the ruling class towards leaders of the Tory party is not so far removed from this 7 primitive psychology. Lenin once remarked that, "a man on the edge of a precipice is not apt to reason very clearly".
• The impasse of capitalism gives rise to all manner of superstitious irrationalism. First the capitalist press ranted and raved about the "Iron Maiden", by whose grace and mercy their system was going to be redeemed. Upon discovering the whole business to be a fraud, they will turn against her. At a certain stage a crisis will open up at the top of the Tory party. The split which the Marxists proclaimed as inevitable even in the moment when the Tory party had apparently achieved its greatest victory, is now being openly discussed in the pages of the capitalist press. While not absolutely certain, it may be doubted that 'The Catherine the Great of Finchley" will be permitted to go the distance of this Parliament. Behind the scenes, the capitalists are already looking around for a more suitable candidate. The crushing defeat in the local elections (discussed elsewhere in this issue) will have accelerated the process. If the miners' strike ends in victory, it will have become irreversible.
Shift to the left The Tories have drawn the conclusion from the local election results that they cannot win the next election. In desperation they have returned to the con trick of selling off council houses at dirt-cheap prices. This they can do with impunity because the full brunt of the costs will fall upon local authorities, not central government. But in the long run it will be of no avail. In the Rhondda two-thirds of the people own their own homes. And the Rhondda is with the miners, not Thatcher.
Seeing the ground slide from under the Tories' feet, the hired liars of Fleet Street lost no time in dragging the Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance out of the cupboard, dusting it down and refurbishing its image as the "real alternative" to Thatcher. That will cut no ice with the majority of the population. Under conditions of heightened class struggle and increasing social polarisation, the Alliance will be squeezed like a lemon. After the miners will come the teachers, civil servants, railwaymen, dockers, engineers. Every section of the class will be involved in struggle. This in turn, as we have already seen in the miners' strike, will mark the beginnings of a turn to the left in the unions, and the Labour Party. The "move to the right" at the last election will give way to an even more decisive movement in the opposite direction. Beginning with the activists, it will spread to the broader masses of the working class, young people, women, the unemployed and even sections of the middle class repelled by Thatcherite barbarism.
We see the first symptoms of this process already in the trade unions. The completely changed mood was shown in the recent conference of USDAW. traditionally not a very militant section of the class. Tomorrow will see the same process taking place in the AUEW and the GMBATU. This, in turn. will
[page 9]
MIR June 1984; Britain pave the way for a further swing to the left in the Labour Party.
The lies of the media, which "prove" that the tried to miners' strike would damage Labour's election chances were completely shown up by the results of the local elections.
Similarly, the pernicious legend that the policies of Militant Photo: Paul Traynor were an electoral liability was yet again shattered by the spectacular advance of the Labour Party in Liverpool (for the second year running). The NEC of the Labour Party has now the conclusion, drawn unanimously approving resolution in support of Livercil's 'Budget Day!'
pool City Council and also voting to reconsider the scandalous decision to expel six Militant supporters in Blackburn. The truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of what the Tory press tries to put over. The struggle of the miners, and Labour's support for it, was an important factor in the party's advance at the polls. And far from being frightened by bold socialist policies, the example of Liverpool shows that work ing people will always respond enthusiastically where a clear-cut socialist alternative is put firmly forward and campaigned on. If the national leadership were prepared to do this, Thatcher's days would already be numbered. But the prevarications and pusillanimity of the right wing of the Labour Party and the trade unions is the biggest factor which helps to keep this reactionary government in power.
In spite of the leadership, the working class cannot accept cuts in their living standards and will fight against all attempts to place the burden of the crisis on their shoulders. The bankruptcy of the right wing trade union leaders was shown by the disgraceful signing of "no strike" contracts by the EETPU and some other unions. This kind of thing will inevitably lead to a radicalisation of the rank and file and a swing to the left, as we already saw in USDAW and the CPSA.
In reality, the position of the right wing, as pointed out by the Marxists long ago, is increasingly untenable. The resignation of Len Murray has nothing whatever to do with his horticultural interests, but everything to do with the groundswell of revolt provoked by his open betrayal of the NGA and his blatant attempts to do a deal with the Thatcher government. Had he not resigned, he would have had to face a storm of opposition at this year's TUC conference, as his friend Alistair Graham will have in the forthcoming conference of the CPSA with 300 resolutions criticising his role. Long ago, we pointer to the inevitability of "sudden and sharp changes" in the situation. And precisely in this way the "new Paul Astbury addresses building workers meeting for taking action on Liverpool counrealism" of the TUC leaders has collapsed and is no more. Murray's resignation is like an action-replay of the Sid Weighell affair, but carried out in a "cold" way. There will be many more such "surprises" in the future.
Perspectives for Labour The political myopia of the Labour right was shown by Hattersley who, four days after the start of the miners' strike was already moaning that it would "make Labour unpopular"
. These people really live in the stratosphere!
Since he has taken office, Neil Kinnock has acted a bit like the man who was seen dragging his heels behind a great crowd of people. When asked what he was doing, he replied, "I'm their leader". If the leaders of the Labour Party nationally had had the same clear policies and courage of the Labour Party in Liverpool, Thatcher would now be in deep trouble. Unfortunately, Neil Kinnock's ambiguous stand on every major issue-Liverpool, the miners' strike, re-selection, and his open support for the witch-hunting of supporters of the Militant-must cast grave doubts in the minds of many Labour Par ty members about the position of the new leader. The "honeymoon' is now over, and very serious questions need to be asked about the direction the party has been taking in recent months.
It was just as well that Kinnock finally decided to come off the fence on the miners' dispute at the STUC conference. On other issues, however, his position remains unclear. Of course, all Labour Party members-including supporters of the Militant-are in favour of unity. But this could all be blown apart if the right wing attempted to abolish mandatory selection of MPs or press ahead with its witchhunting activities against socialists. The right wing, and their "soft left" allies must decide whether they really want party unity or whether they intend to persist in pursuing objectives which run counter to the 8
[page 10]
Lt;
The capitalist press now openly comments on the hostility to Thatcher within the Tory Party.
wishes of the overwhelming majority of party members and which would inevitably lead to open civil war.
In reality, the base of the right wing is extremely weak. A further swing to the left in the unions and the Labour Party would undermine them completely. Under these conditions, a further spate of defections cannot be ruled out, as these ladies and gentlemen try to find a new and more secure avenue for their careers in the ranks of the Alliance, or the Tory party directly.
In any event, the most likely perspective is for a Labour government at the next general election. This will be formed under radically different conditions to the last Labour government of 1974 - 79. On the one hand, the crisis of British capitalism will be immeasurably more profound. The present boomlet will not last much beyond next year or 1986 at the latest,
Photo: Militant
Photo:
and will prepare the way for a still more terrible collapse.
The present situation is a harbinger of far more bitter and generalised class conflict in the future. The miners' strike shows how the consciousness of the workers can be transformed in a question of weeks, days or even in a few hours. Whichever way the present strike may end, the consciousness of the miners will never the be same again. A whole new generation of class fighters have now been "blooded" in the struggle against the employers and the government.
This government is in the process of becoming the most hated government in modern history. Its representatives, like MacGregor, speak the language of naked, undisguised class warfare. It is completely different to the refined and diplomatic "consensus" policies of the past. The fact, in itself, reflects the catastrophic crisis of British capitatlism. It is this, and not the personal quirks of Thatcher and MacGregor, which predetermines the nature of the period in which we live.
But the workers are also beginning to draw their conclusions from all this. In the course of the struggle to defend their living standards and jobs they will inevitably begin to understand that on the basis of capitalism there is no way forward.
The policies of the Labour right and the "soft" lefts are bankrupt. They will only repeat the traumatic experiences of 1974-79, with disastrous consequences. The Tribune left's so-called "Alternative Policy" is no alternative at all, but merely a slightly more radical version of the old Keynesian nonsense which has been shown to be false time and again.
The experience of left governments in Europe shows what happens when you try to carry out a reformist policy without carrying through a thoroughgoing socialist transformation of society. In France and Greece, the socialist leaders have been compelled to abandon their programme and pass from reforms to counter-reforms. In Spain, the right wing leaders of the PSOE actually began with attacks on living standards and employment!
Any attempt to carry through a programme of counter-reforms or a new version of the "Social Contract" will inevitably lead to a revolt on the part of the rank and file of the unions and the Labour Party. The workers will come to understand the need for a Marxist alternative based on a complete socialist transformation as the only way to carry society forward.
It is no accident that the ideas of Marxism, represented by the Militant and the MIR have gained increasing support in the recent period in the Labour Party and the trade unions. This is not the result of some "conspiracy" or "infiltration" as the right wing and the Tory press like to pretend. The ideas of Marxism reflect the realities of the life of the workers in the present epoch. They, and they alone, provide a viable alternative for the labour movement, of which they are an organic and inseperable part. Armed with these ideas and policies, the unions and the Labour Party will be invincible.
9
[page 11]
MIR June 1984; European revolution