Glc: the Realities of Power

Scan page 12

Canialict Aroaniser). we been sure that this I tha Marine Comrares. the class strug- unless it is forced on ye BRIEFING AGAINST THE WITCH HUNT. 5p per copy, plus 11%p postage, or 20 copies for zl post free, from Ann Matthews, c/o Bermondsey Labour Party, 133 Lower Rd., London SE16. in the rest of BL and a campaign was initiated to do so with the intention of calling an all-BL shop stewards meeting at a date to be decided after our own allNW stewards' meeting.

It must be realised, however, that whilst there is a link between Cars and Vehicles at managerial level, Edwardes never threatened Cars with closure during the dispute.

Had Edwardes • made such threats it would have destroyed management's strategy of containment and possibly produced a reaction of unimagineable consequences for the Tories.

The links which existed between the unions before the strike were virtually non-existent and the links in the minds of the two workforces are in the main, vague. So why does Lally turn the link between Cars and Vehicles into an obsession?

Lally is all over the place: For a start the shop stewards are not 'by far and away the most conservative layers in the factory." The composition of the shop stewards committee is uneven and at the all-union stewards meeting before the final mass meeting they were 100 percent in favour of carrying on the dispute.

The influence of the white collar unions is not 'largely conservative"

indeed it was. ASTMS who voted to have a sit-in in the first place, and TASS had taken action long before the EATLAND TRUCK THANKS for your THANKS for your "open letter' in response to the Briefing Editorial. This reply is my own alone.

One point I accept. The editorial was not half hard enough on Ken Livingstone or on the leadership of ILEA (who caved in to pressure quite unnecessarily and without a fight). Our editorial said:

'We are not yielding ground to the Tories any more than we are being literally forced to"

For some of us, this may be true, but we should have made a sharper distinction between certain members of the GLC left and others.

At various times, there has been clear dissatisfaction with the way in which Ken Livingstone led resistance to the decisions of Denning and the Law Lords: those points should have been reiterated.

Compromised

The substantive issue, however, is whether or not the whole Labour GLC should have voted against its own budget last month and resigned. You say that this should have happened, in accordance with the vote at the February meeting of Target 82. My view is that it was correct to say: "Resign rather than capitulate"

anything is better than to be seen by Londoners as politically compromised through collaboration with the rule of the Judges and the Tory Government.

But is this what is happening? I don't think so. It is not quite fair to describe Ken Livingstone's policy as "protest against the fare rise but vote for it" (which is how you describe it in Socialist Organiser). When the crucial vote came. up, Ken Livingstone and the GLC left voted almost unanimously against complying with the Lords.

Morale

It was a combination of Labour right wingers, the SDP and the Liberals with the Tories which defeated this line. From then on, the question became whether to draw up a budget at all. At the Target 82 meeting in question, felt it necessary to place the hardest pressure on Ken and others to avoid them being seen to compromise in the smallest respect, because of the effect such weakness at the top might have had on the morale of those engaged in the "Can't industrial action in support of Fares Fair. As the budget vote approached, however, there began to develop the most intense bitterness between those who had supported the Target 82 line on the one hand, and virtually the entire left of the GLO Labour Group on the other.

Should we have pressed the division to the point of splitting the Briefing network irrevocably, with the Tories and the press able to exploit this split?

Had we been sure that "disengagement' - ie.

the immediate resignation of the Labour GLC -was popular with the mass of London Labour Parties, with the trade union rank and file and with all those wanting a fight against iht we been sure that this would have strengthened, rather than weakened, our forces in relation to the Tories, we would have carried through the necessary split. But was this the case? I Would Brieting have carried the bulk of London left activists with us in direct opposition to Ken Livingstone., and the GLC? I don't think so. It is important that we are conscious of our own strength - not underestimating it; but not widly overestimating it either.

My view is that the mass of Londoners see the attempted doubling of fares on London Transport as being despite the efforts of Dave Wetzel, Ken Livingstone and the Labour GLC. They are not TORIES increases: they do see the Law Lords and the Tories as responsible. An editorial in Briefing must surely perform a slightly different function from a vote taken by activists at a meeting of Target 82: it is more public, and it must attempt to transcend tactical differences and unite the maximum possible range of left activists around us under the conditions which actually exist.

Once the "disengagement" line had been shown to have little support, we had to take account of this, not keep pressing it mechanically and regardless of consequences. You write:

'You talk about doing better next time, in a different fight later. But if the GLC left will not fight Comrades, the class struggle is always now."

I would agree that 'the class struggle is always now", , but on the other hand a sense of timing is useful sometimes as well.

What I think you inadequately understand is that we are engaged in a struggie not Just for propaganda points, but for power.

Choice

It is the realities of power which are the problem, not 'incorrect ideas" in Ken Livingstone's for anyone else's) head.

If we had full state power in our hands, we wouldn't have to make difficult choices between almost equally unsatisfactory alternatives: we could smash through the system, implementing cheap fares for free fares) without raising rates, without having to bother about Judges or the "law", without having to take account of 'economic realities" in capitalist terms. To the extent that we lack full power, however, things aren't su easy. We have to choose • between unsatisfactory alternatives. On the other hand, the fact that we do have to do this just shows that we are living and struggling in the real world, not just in a walld paper, propaganda and resolutions.

When I have advocated "disengagement" in Briefing, 1 have always made clear the implications of this. Ceding office may be an appropriate

Disengage

The only circumstances in which it would be right to disengage would be those in which we would have more power out of office than in.

If the Tories and their allies, in assuming the responsibilities of office in place of ourselves, found themselves up against an absolute wall of resistance which made them virtually incapable of ruling at all, then the tactic would have been proved correct. Even then, however, it would only be correct if we were so permanently strong that we could soon force another election and regain office ourselves - this time with real power in our hands.

It is obvious that the disengagement tactic presupposes a very high 'state of class consciousness in the population.

Showdown

The moment of disen. gagement then becomes : signal for massive, near insurrectionary, upheavals in which something like "dual power" become! posed. It would have beer nice if that had been the situation this spring ir connection with the Fare:

Fair fight, but unfortun ately, it wasn't. It is correc and necessary to state tha we will have to "do bette next time, in a differen fight, later". The decisive show-down with the rulin‹ class is yet to come.

Yours fraternally CHRIS KNIGH

Scan page 13

Thursday

----- pull-quotes -----

Pay - Won't Pay" cam- paign and the struggle for