Debate on the downturn in mass struggle Our task: to revolutionise the union response to John Mcllroy's recent

Scan page 10

Second (and concluding) part of a Socialist Organiser series on the state of the industrial struggle PEACE of being, in action, the organs then this sense the programme of It is an artificial and false method to look at sections who have struggled in the past and simply counterpose to that their inaction today.

Prior to 1972 the miners had not fought for many years. The luge gains - and favourable relationship of forces in negotiations - which they secured in 1972 and 1974 are significant factors in shaping their deci-. sions today.

What were the water workers doing in 1974? If we picked them as an example, we could even argue that workers are more' militant than they were then!

The struggle does not erupt at the same points all the time. New sections emerge in sudden struggles which change the face of the labour movement - such struggle against Labour's pay limits in 1977-8.

But the reality in recent years is that where leadership has been given, in most instances workers have responded.

The health workers - and those who supported them -were an example. The rail workers as a whole, and then ASLEF, were another.

Leadership is the key issue. Certainly lack of leadership or misleadership does demoralise sections of the working class, and affect its consciousness. But to focus simply on the lack of consciousness of the vast maj. ority of the working class is not only to see things upside down: it is also to turn away from the only available solution to the problem.

We cannot hope to reach the mass of workers individually with propaganda that will raise their consciousness. We can only hope to raise a fight through the organised labour movement for the construction THATCHER Water workers: new militants Whilst this can never be a substitute for the industrial struggle, it has important implications for the struggle. Workers' willingness to go forward on the industrial front depends to some extent on what possibilities they can see for a real alternative to Thatcher. Moreover it raises the questions in a stark fashion of union democracy and the creation of a new leadership"

This approach tends to direct away from the task which Trotsky termed as "revolutionising The fight against the right wing and the left fakers in the Labour Party is correct: but it does not necessarily represent a development if workers turn towards that sphere of struggle. It can represent a retreat from the necessary struggle inside John Mellroy tells us:

there has been a limited but substantial politicisation as many other workers, faced with the impasse on the industrial front, are turning to wider solutions, solutions which focus initially on the election of a Labour government' The 'impasse' is caused by the activities of the trade union bureaucracy - and can only be broken by a political fight inwithout the work in the union rank and file any 'victories' achieved in the Labour Party will be paper-thin.

The fight to revolutionise' the unions seems to be in contradiction to John Mcllroy's orthodox insistence that the unions are simply defence organs of the working class in capitalist society.

It is true that simply through trade union activity the working class will not overthrow capitalism. It is vital that a revolutionary party is developed, capable of giving leadership in the unions and the class as a whole.

But the trade unions will play a particular role in the revolution. The development of a revolutionary party is in large measure the struggle for the unions. As Trotsky pointed out, the 66. ... can no longer be reformist, because the objective conditions leave no room for any serious or lasting reforms. The trade unions of our time can either serve as secondary instruments of imperialist capitalism for the subordination and disciplining of workers and for obstructing the revolution, or, on the contrary, the trade unions can become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat...

''The matter at issue is essentially the struggle for influence over the working class" (The Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay).

A Programme of Struggle In four lengthy articles which presumably John Mollroy intended as education for workers, he fails even once to refer to the =reatme of transitional demands which Trotsky central to the fight in the cracy in the unions and the manifesto and programme of a Labour government' Even reformist leaders talk of socialism and others talk about the 'crisis of ideas' amongst the rank and file.

As Trotskyists we need to link the daily struggle for reforms to the necessity for revolution. To do this we raise demands that are transitional in that they connect with the needs and consciousness of workers today, but point to the necessity of revolutionary solutions.

In defence of jobs, for examnla mo ohanld linl pros we sivate mik occupanon and supporting strike action to the fight for the 'opening of the books' of the threatened firm, plant, or industry, to show the connections that link it to other sections of workers and the way the capitalist class as a whole profits even from the 'loss-making' firms. In the pits, we must connect the fight against closures to the demand for a shorter working week - work-sharing - on full pay. In defence of living standards we argue for cost-of-living clauses in all wage agreements, on a price index worked out by elected trade union committees.

Through such demands

offer workers an independent road, refusing to pay for the crisis of capitalism.

But John Mcllroy not only fails to point in this direction, he point the other way, using the hoary old SWP claim that if employers "show they can't pay" , this can stop redundancy fights.

Since he uses the word 'show' rather than 'claim', this can only be read as an acceptance of those figures and an implicit attack upon the 'open the books' I know of no recent example of 'bankrupt' employers opening their books to an elected committee. But even if they did, this is only an aspect of the programme we fight for: it is tied into the fight for the spreading of action and agitation, the fight for workers' control and the demand for nationalisation without compensation.

The programme is necessary for work amongst the shop floor membership and in the union apparatus. In this respect John Mellroy is wrong to claim that the bureaucratisation of the shop stewards' movement is 'double-sided' in that it 'has the potential for focusing a fight for control oí the machine"

If people have been bureaucratised. they may seek personal Miners: rememhering the gains of 1972-4 advantage, but will not seek to revolutionise the machine. Bureaucratisation weakens the possibility of developing revolutionaries in struggle. We need revolutionary fighters, not apparatchiks.

The demands of the Transitional Programme are not intended for decoration or propaganda. As Trotsky pointed out:

"In the epoch of imperialist decay, the trade unions can be really independent only to the extent that they are conscious of the proletarian revolution. In transitional demands... is not only the programme for the activity of the (revolutionary) party but in its fundamental features it is the programme for the activity of the trade unions"

Soft targets In arguing his case, John McIroy has attacked some easy targets. The SWP have given up on the struggle in the unions, and wound up their 'rank and file' organisations. The WRP talk of leadership in abstraction from the arena in which a new leadership must be built - the conflict with the bureaucracy in the trade unions. As for the RCP sectarians, no comment is needed.

But what ideas is Mollroy defending? He is directing attention away from problems of leadership and towards the consciousness of the rank and file.

Capitalism of course would have been overthrown long ago if the consciousness of the working class were adequate to the situation. Then there would be no need for a revolutionary But workers are continually driven into revolutionary situations on a world scale. The reason they do not overthrow capitalism is the absence of a revolutionary leadership.

The present downturn in struggles (rather than militancy) is due to the actions of the bureaucracy, carrying through ever-bigger betrayals as the crisis deepens.

The next 12 months in the unions will see the necessity for redundancy struggles to be raised within the People's March campaign; the need to raise CND; and of course the socialist campaign for the return of a Labour government.

But this general propaganda work is secondary to the fight to expose the union leadership's betrayals, and to convince workers of the need for a new revolutionary leadership on a programme of transitional demands which point the way forward for the working class as a whole.

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

Arruments for A BATU 50 YEARS OF INDUSTRIAL

Certainly 'socialist policies' are mentioned, as are demo-