The Next Step: No. 33, March 1983

the next step 13 years of British terror No33 March 1983 Ireland: T Christmas. Madel shot deed and he lill wounded as they fed a neighbour before rural Armagh Ten unarmed members of the nationalist community have beer murdered by shoot-to-kill squads in Ireland in the past three months.

Their deaths mark a new round in the reign of terror that has claime hundreds of trish lives in the Six 13 years Counties over the past The Irish Freedom Movement is campaigning for an end to British rule in Ireland. This month we are organising a week of action against the Prevention of Terrorism Act the law the government uses to terrorise sympathisers with the cars tom in Britain, Join us review of the Revolutionary Communist Party

PREPARING FOR

POWER

A Marxist celebration of the Marx centenary A week of discussion and debate, politics and polemics London July 16 - 22 page 11

RCP

Activities

LONDON

Living Marxism Thursday 3 March 7.30pm Marxism and labourism Thursday 10 March 7.30pm Marxism, the working class and the revolutionary party Camden Library, Regents Park Branch, Compton Close, Robert Street (Warren Street tube) Tuesday 8 March 7,30pm International Women's Day Rally Women against imperialism John Barnes Library, 275, Camden Road, N7

BIRMINGHAM

Living Marxism Wednesday 2 March Tories in power - Labour is no alternative Wednesday 16 March Marx Centenary Marxism in the '80s Wednesday 30 March The TUC and unemployment The great job auction All meetings at 7,30pm, Digbeth Civic Hall

LEEDS

Tuesday 8 March Women against imperialism peace camp All day Solidarity with women freedom fighters!

Support the women in Armagh Jail!

Rally at 1pm Mandela Gardens, outside Leeds Civic Hall Tuesday 8 March Public Meeting 7,30pm Women against imperialism Victoria Hotel, Great George Street, Leeds 1

SHEFFIELD

Tuesday 8 March 7.30pm Public Meeting Women and Peace Friday 25 March 7.30pm Public Meeting British Marxism A revolutionary critique see the next step sellers for details Contents Editorial Farewell to the welfare state reland 4.5 Ireland's victory - Britain's defeat Plastic bullets TUC censors IFM Labour and the PTA Smash the PTA Splits in Irish solidarity 2 the next step, March 1983 Battling in Bermondsey On the move: the RCP electoral machine

RCP

Bermondsey By-election battle Economy The falling pound Preparing for Power Labour movement conference to commemorate Marx's centenary: a week of discussion and debate the next step

RCP

Bern hey Pran eden on a walkabout War camp* outside Southwark Town Hall Bermondsey debate: Peter Tatchell finger Communist Party candidate everybody else said: noDdy CoUld WorK out why he was standing.

-BERMONDSE Y

Labour movement The leadership crisis Liverpool's Militants 10 Sheffield's traditions Racism USA: licence to kill Police tool up South Africa Botha causes bother 14 Tmnot a racist but..? You've read about us in the next step, now see us in action: • in solidarity with black workers on strike • fighting police harassment • organising against the race check: Order the new Workers Against Racism video now to show in your trade union branch, youth club or college. Invitations for speakers welcomed.

TIM NOT A RACIST. BUT

33 minutes, colour - £5 to hire Write to:

WORKERS AGAINST RACISM,

BM WAR, London WCIN 3XX or telephone 01-274-3951 Reviews Engineers, Yemen 21 Ireland, Lebanon Letters Irish POWs, AUEW elections 22 Lenin, Hospital cuts Women's autonomy, 23 pre-capitalist relations Peace Question time for CND 24 17 Published by Junius Publications Ltd 18 BCM JP LTD, London WCIN 3XX 19 Printed by Morning Litho Printers Ltd (TU) Junius Publications Ltd (TU) 20 ISSN 0144-350X March 1983

Farewell to the welfare state A GENERAL ELECTION draws near and the Tories are soaring Government leaders are opinion polls. the policies and considering ahead with the measures that will shape Britain under another term of Tory rule.

Documents recently leaked to the press ominously reveal the direction of Tory thinking on social policy and the public services. At the same time, the Government is carrying forward the privatisation of selected parts of the public sector and its campaign against rights. On all fronts the Tories are being allowed walk-over by labour movement. Self reliance and thrift The Prime Minister and her colleagues want to encourage the development of children, the major resource of the future, into self reliant, responsible, capable, enterprising fulfilled adults" and 18 February). The Chancellor of the intends Exchequer to manage their pocket money; he also approves of more schools with a clear moral base'. The transport thinks mothers should stay at home and look after their children as well as the elderly, the disabled and unemployed 16-year-olds (who should be deprived of benefits). Keith Joseph wants to help parents set up their own schools and to extend private education voucher system. They all want to promote private provision for social need throughout the welfare services.

The Tories are not as daft as they seem. While many of the fresh ideas under consideration in Thatcher's toplevel Family Policy Group are impractical or downright stupid, the main thrust of a coherent Tory strategy clearly. The aim is to marshal all the reactionary values of bourgeois society in a drive to push the burden of welfare on to the backs of the working class.

Indeed the process is already underway.

In February health minister Norman Fowler, a key figure in the "back to the family think-tank, announced his latest attempt to privatise ancillary in the National Health Service. Contracts for cleaning, catering and laundry worth a total of £800 million will be opened to private tender. To encourage the new scheme Fowler has subsidised the private making VAT refundable to sector by hospitals where services are contracted out. To show the way to other employers, has Government offered the health care at a 40 per cent discount 650 000 of its own employees in the civil service. The Government's onslaught on the public services moves in parallel with its other attacks the on Employment minister beyond his has moved Paper proposals on making the trade unions even more undemocratic through state-funded ballots. Now he has suggested outlawing strikes in essential public services like gas, electricity has appointed Thatcher Mr MacGregor", as The Times approvingly dubs him, to do to Arthur Scargill's miners what he has done so successfully to Bill Sirs' steelworkers. And in Scot- Tory Minister Alex Fletcher has land. provided £12 for a s40 million money at the Hyster forklift plant in scheme Irvine. The only condition was the nonunionised workforce accepting a 13 As Scottish cut. wage Cent director William Watson said, You have to have a lot of confidence to get away with something like this.

Beveridge buried The Tories and their business friends over with brimming ahead in the supine Labour's ment, pushing Labour Labour's the accepts Mount, trade union official the protected Cabinet Tories country's (The Guardian, train children minister a through employment level the end of the decade, economy can emerges services private what it cost a class. working Norman Tebbit and recent Green of a health service cheap in by the and water. continued in the granite parsimonious Tory governments. million of government investment per managing a more difficult task: Hence confidence. the next step The leaders of the labour movement lie In Parliabefore their advance. spokesmen can only froth about the historic gains of the post- Government, Thatcher's return to Victorian values and the personal unattractiveness of Norman Tebbit.

problem is that, because it realities of the capitalist crisis, it cannot come up with a coherent defence of the welfare state, Thatcher's new Rasputin is Ferdinand an old Etonian who picked up lots of fresh ideas' while working on the Daily Mail. He is now the man behind the Family Policy Group, Mount is right when he says that the consensus which the welfare state for 25 years no longer prevails. But it is not only the that the welfare who recognise state which was inaugurated at the close of the Second World War can no longer be sustained in the face of the recession: The 1944 commitment to full employment remains the totem pole standing among the wreckage of every government's achievement for a generation. There is no credible return to that aspiration and the opposition parties know it. (The Times, S February) Full employment was one of the "basic assumptions' on which William Beveridge drew up his plans for the welfare state.

The Labour Party long ago abandoned it even as a distant policy goal. Now its most optimistic plans aim at an unof one million by The Labour Party has consistently accepted that workers' welfare needs must be tailored to what the capitalist afford. In his broadcast to the nation on the foundation of the NHS in 1948, Labour leader Clement Attlee expounded the philosphy that has guided the party ever since: "All social services have to be paid for in one way or another from what is produced by the people of Britain. We cannot create a scheme which gives the nation as a whole more than we put into it.. only higher output can give us more of the things we all need.'

But what if 'output', the national economy 'as a whole', is declining? The inescapable conclusion - and the Labour Party has never hesitated to draw this conclusion - is that we all have to put up with less of the things we all need' Attlee's Government ruthlessly curbed spending on welfare during the post-war reconstruction of British capitalism. It reduced social security benefits below the minima recommended by Beveridge on the basis of his careful calculations of clothe worker to feed, and house himself and his family. The Labour Goverment cut back spending on the NHS in the first year of its existlater imposed prescription charges for the first time. The principle provided on the converted workhouses was celebrated as a great socialist achievement Labour Party. The NHS was the spirit of the same principle by a series of The 1974 to 1979 Labour Government followed the same principles in more straightened circumstances. Labour's response to the onset of the recession was to slash capital spending in the welfare field. In five years it cut back capital expenditure on education by 42 per cent, health by 23 percent and housing by 18 per cent. After 1979 the Tories took over where Labour left off. They faced there was little scope for further cuts in building programmes, etc so they had to tackle current expenditure - made up largely of the wages of the five million public service workers.

the series of battles over pay in the public sector. The Tories have also tried to rationalise public expenditure by selling off potentially sectors especially in the industrial field, but also in public services, such as refuse collection. opposition to the Tories, In Labour Party has accepted that there can be no return to the welfare state, even at the level at which it existed the post-war boom. Education during spokesman Neil Kinnock has acknowledged that Labour will not be able to restore the cuts in education services in the foresecable future. Other Labour leaders have been careful to avoid commitments on specific measures to improve and expand services or even to re-nationalise privatised sectors. In local government even left-wing have become services at greater costs to ratepayers.

Labour councils in London, the West Midlands. ( Sheffield and elsewhere have set up employment women's committees to encourage selfhelp initiatives such as operatives and parent-run accepted that workers will Labour has have to bear the burden for services the capitalist state can no longer afford.

The ideology of efficiency In its latest glossy The battle for jobs, the TUC restates the Attlee outlook on the public services: We are concerned that the best use is made of the resources in the economy, and that the way these are allocated reflects the priority attaching to the needs of society.

The TUC upholds the NHS because it reckons that it gives better value for money than countries, such as the USA. Len Murray is not alone in these views. Answering questions in Parliament on the back to the family' documents, claimed that her government was aiming at "better value for money management throughout The TUC and the Tories share sector'. the same goals efficient, health and welfare services. No wonder unions cannot fight the measures the the Tories are bringing forward to achieve For the past decade union have attempted to frame their defence of public sector jobs and services in terms of their commitment to the principles of the welfare state. But, as the Tories are making clearer by the day, the only principle behind capitalist welfare services is to provide as little as possible as cheaply as possible. The desperate Britsh capitalism means that the welfare system built up during boom cannot be sustained in its present form. The object of Tory policy is to reconstruct the patter of services so that they cost the state much less and the working class much more. In this process the union bureaucrats have been reduced to the status of passive, if anguished •Standards spectators. suffer' whined NALGO's Ada Maddocks as Fowler announced his latest privatisation plans for ancillary services. "This will lead to large scale redundancies among dedicated and committed staff COHSE's bleated Albert Rodney Bickerstaffe of NUPE claimed that the Tories were motivated by ideo logy efficiency' not nobody could make such an accusation against our trade union leaders.

In Parliament the opposition was even pathetic. Left-wingers more shouted their usual vacuous denunciations at the Tories for the benefit of radio listeners; they left the political arguments right-winger Gwyneth Dunwoody.

to Her objection to the privatisation of the NS was that it was impractical, that it profitable from the authorities could be Labour councils reconciled to inferior On the and committees offensive the workers' conurseries. better than economic review, in the coming election. health systems in other tied. The trade union Thatcher proand better the public capitalist, elected. services: leaders the unions state of the post-war 1 February) are bound to Spanswick. Unfortunately simply mounts. would not in any way contribute to the economy of the NHS' and, rather obscurely, that private laundries might cause cross-infection. Her main concern however was to extract an undertaking the health minister that health would not be penalised if they refused to contract out their services on the grounds that the work more efficiently and better, more cheaply carried out in the NHS.

In other words, Dunwoody wanted to ensure ample scope for one of the main functions of the threat of privatisation.

This is to force hospitals to raise productivity, increase workloads and cutstaff, rather than lose jobs to private contractors. This has been the main use of the privatisation weapon against local government refuse collection workers.

Family favourites broader aspects of the Tory Labour opposition equally ineffectual. When Michael Foot challenged the Tories for cutting the NHS, Thatcher rounded on him, insisting that the Tory record on the NHS was that of the last Labour Government. This may be a slight exaggeration, but nobody contradicted her.

On the Tories use of propaganda about the family to drive women out of work and to accept even more childcare, sickcare, geriatric-care and many other cares in the home, Labour had little to say.

After all, it was James Callaghan who, as Labour leader, tried to play the family card in the run-up to the 1979 general election. Labour cannot complain if it is trumped by the Tories on this issue Even on Tebbit, Labour's hands are first proposals to legislate against strikes in essential services came, not from the demon Tebbit, but from the leaders during Labour's 1979 'winter of discontent' Today the union chiefs are formalising a deal with Labour leaders along the lines of the 1974 Social Contract in the hope that it will help get a Labour government Senior union negotiator and TGWU leader Moss Evans beat Tebbit by two weeks in the proposal of measures to restrict strike action in the public *I a Labour government is elected, I think would be prepared to conclude what you could term an accord. There are a number of important public sectors in which we have to devise a way of solving our problems without recourse to industrial action.

No-one wants to take away, in a free society, the right of workers to withdraw their labour.

But there ought to be some practical arrangements made to make a stoppage of work in these sections the last resort,' (Financial Times, When the Labour Party and trade union leaders are making plans to outlaw strikes and cut wages (through the 'national under a future economic assessment') Labour government, it's not surprising that they are so ineffective at fighting Tory ‹anti-working class measures.

The working class is not responsible for the capitalist crisis and it does not have to pay for it in mass unemployment, poverty and misery. We have to begin from what we need, not what they say they can afford. That means rejecting any concern for 'efficiency" and value for money' in public services: that is their problem, just like the profitability of private industry.

We need jobs, decent wages and adequate services - and we decide what is decent and adequate. It also means rejecting the existing leadership of the labour movement in the Labour Party and the TUG which is the major barrier to the defence of the working class as the Tory offensive the next step, March 19833

Ireland Movement

-ONDON

keynote address to the conference.

THE WAR in Ireland stirs deeper emotions than any other issue in British political life.

No other question provokes the ruling class such heights of mystification and evasion.

programme that gives an account of events the Six Counties 1S 'providing assistance republican interview with an opportunity for a further provides burst of venom in Parliament; a proposed visit to London by a Sinn Fein delegation becomes an occasion for mass hysteria.

For more than a decade the establishment's portrait of Ireland has moulded public opinion. The ruling class has even succeeded in dominating discussion inside the labour movement, stamping its mark on the British left imperialists onto the defensive.

The success of the ruling class can be gauged by the pathetic response in Britain to the H-Block hunger-strike in 1981. As one Irish freedom fighter after another was murdered, the British left looked in direction, hoping that this the opposite embarrassing affair would soon be over.

The British left defensive and apologetic when it comes to the bomb attacks on especially when they take place in Britain Every time a bomb goes off in itself. England, left groups scramble to beat one another to be the first to denounce it as a *mindless outrage" or provocation The Irish War, however, will not go away.

It is no bizarre interlude that will be superseded by a more reasonable form of political conflict. For more than a century, Ireland has haunted British politics.

partition of Ireland in the twenties gave the British ruling class a temporary respite, 'sixties the problem has but since the returned with a vengeance.

remain at the centre of the political stage until it is united and free British imperialism may heap domination. scorn and derision on the Irish republican movement, butits forces cannot defeat the national liberation struggle.

our movement imperialists in Britain mystification and trivialisation of the Irish War and popularised the call for the defeat of British imperialism. 4 the next step, March 1983 The Irish Freedom Movement, the biggest and the loudest contingent on the Bloody Sunday demonstration in Leads Ireland's victory means Britain's defeat On the day before this year's Bloody Sunday commemoration march, 250 members and supporters of the Irish Freedom Movement gathered for a conference in Leeds, organised around the theme "New tasks for Irish solidarity'. Here we reprint Frank Richards hysteria, A television denounced as for terrorism'; an militants and fighters as a bunch psychopaths and forcing antilican movement. confessions the resistance movement. The policy becomes even more British on the run. senseless had become, The moved to sponsibility Ireland will from British could be foree, rather than by It is time that of workers and antichallenged the police. In fact, plemented - Plovement

ESTER

The non-war An effective movement of solidarity with the Irish people must be based on a clear assessment of the present state of the war.

Since the mid-seventies successive British governments have tried to pretend that in fact there is no was going on in Ireland.

This was the essence of the policy implemented by Labour's Northern Ireland secretary Roy Mason under the Wilson Mason's Callaghan governments. policy aimed to portray Irish freedom of criminals and without popular support. The Army's propaganda machine churned out lurid accounts of crimes allegedly perpetrated by self-seeking terrorists. The withdrawal of special status from Irish prisoners of war was a central component of this campaigh to criminalise the repub- A crude system of judicial ferror, consisting of no-jury courts and convictions obtained on the basis of extracted through torture, provided the framework for criminalising "criminalisation' of was accompanied by a determined effort to make out that life on the streets of the towns and cities of the Six Counties was slowly returning to normal.

Every few weeks Mason announced that the IRA was To prove how normal a part of the 'United Kingdom' the Six Counties Mason insisted that the Oueen include Northern Ireland' in her Jubilee tour around the realm in 1977.

Government officials further argued that, since the situation was returning to normal and the only problem that remained was one of law and order, the Army could be the background and refor could now be security devolved to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

'Normalisation' thus meant "Ulsterisation'.

"Ulsterisation' was an attempt to redefine the war as a local security problem which dealt with by a normal police army. The war between Britain and Ireland was turned into a conflict between criminals and the "Ulsterisation was never imfor the simple reason that a war cannot be defined out of existence.

Although the RUC took over formal responsibility for security, the mained the basic guarantor of imperialist domination. The British authorities were not unduly concerned about the lack of the "Ulsterisation" progress on They never seriously intended to leave the security of the. British state to the RUC anyway. "Ulsterisation' aimed to provide propaganda support for the policy of "criminalisation" international opinion that the problem was crime not colonialism, "Criminalisation' and 'Ulsterisation' were ideological devices needed to confer legitimacy on Britain's role in Ireland and to mobilise public opinion in England behind the war drive.

Normalisation", Ulsterisation' were underwritten by state subsidies designed to generate a measure of economic stability. concessions were made available to create jobsin new industries such as the DeLorean Motor Company, and to save jobs in the declining textiles and shipbuilding sectors.

However, life in the Six Counties remained far from normal. resources of the British state to step up Under the system of judicial

BEDTESOR

internment, hundreds of republicans were detained and covert military operations were stepped up. However, Mason's central objective of squeezing the life out of the IRA' was never realised. army document captured by the IRA in 1979 appreciated the resilience of British.

imperialism's Nol enemy: The Provisionals' campaign of violence is likely to continue while the British remain in Northern Ireland. political developments of a kind which would seriously undermine the Provisionals' position.* The private forebodings of the security forces became public knowledge in 1981.

Thousands of Irish people took to the streets to protest against the conditions imposed on the H-Block and Armagh prisoners. The widespread support enjoyed by the hunger-strikers Bobby Sands and later Owen Carron as MPs for Fermanagh-South Tyrone - tore the policy of criminalisation into shreds.

Only inside Britain could the lie that republican prisoners were criminals receive any degree of popular support.

community British the party's predicament: presently nationalism. Unionist McCusker. edly much higher. Army recould have and selective policy. that there - in particular, to show less devote "criminalisation' and Funds and other as the military Mason used the full revealed the strategy: A secret British We see little prospect of in - but go in." ation. cemente the election of believe that the British Army They bullets. Irish policy War as usual Since the end of the hunger-strikes British imperialism has been forced to resort to its traditional forms of repression. The world recession hasgiealt a severe blow to the Six Counties: mass unemploymentand poverty do not provide the best conditions for experiments in 'normalisation'.

The electoral success of Sinn Fein in the 1982 Assembly elections showed the strength of anti-imperialist feeling in the nationalist Another reflection of this sentiment is the attempt by the moderate Catholic Social Democratic and Labour Party to assume a more nationalist stance in the hope of retaining electoral support.

traditionally governments have regarded the SDLP as a bulwark of support for the institutions of British rule in Ireland against the republican movement. But the SDLP's long cultivated middle ground is fast disappearing beneath it.

The Belfast magazine Fortnight recently summed up At the moment the SDIP are on a hiding to nothing; they know that their grass roots will desert them in droves for Sinn Fein if they make any moves towards the Assembly as constituted; their Council for a New Ireland is a non-starter., and they have little hope of outbidding the Provos to become the standard-bearers of hard line Another symptom of the rising tension in the Six Counties was an article in the same issue of Fortnight by the Official Harold Party deputy leader bluntly McCusker insisted violence could not be avoided; he pointrematked that the recent substantial vote for Sinn Fein is not an accurate reflection of support for viol ence, but that support for violence is McCusker even raised the probability of a new carve-up of the Six Counties as a solution to the troubles.

The response of British imperialism has been more violent than McCusker wished. The main elements of the new hard-line approach are more convictions through using "supergrasses by SASassassina tions trained RUC hit squads. The shoot-tokill policy is a recognition of the fact is no. political alternative to direct rule and repression. In conditions of virtual economic collapse, the repressive element of British strategy The British assumes a new importance.

state has no alternative but to allow the more political aspects of its domination to recede into the background and to the resources to "winning hearts' of the nationalist population.

Shoot-to-kill The shoot-to-kill policy éxposes the true character of British domination in Ireland.

In reality the shoot-to-kill policy is as old Irish War. The of British aim has been occupation al ways to destroy the movement for Irish liberation. The murder of 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday in January 1972 behind the real purpose Ireland. At the military occupation of time General Sir Walter Walker demanded an even more coercive "siege and slaughter" We have, to decide if Northern Ireland is part of Britain or not - and, if so, act accordingly. We should cut off their petrol, gas, electricity and stop food going in, soften them up and go in; give warning so they can get their women and children not before we go Even at the height of 'normalisation' the shoot-to-kill policy was in full oper- The SAS and other covert units were busy eliminating their opponents in South Armash and Belfast. One Army major explained his philosphy to The Guardian in 1979: "Some people believe I believe in internment. selective assassination' (19 February).

- In Britain many on the left seem to worst thing that the does is to shoot plastic argue that repression is unnecessary and that a more enlightened West can be pursued by

Sinn Fein assembly member Jim McAllister addresses the Bloody Sunday rally minster. This myopic view fails to understand something that the ruling class has appreciated for a long time: there is no solution political, non-military Irish War. forme As the of the British forces in Ireland Sir John Hackett put it, the Six Counties contain an 'explosive mixture, one which promises to 'continue to exist into the forseeable future more or less as before (Hibernia 9 August 1979).

As long as Britain dominates Treland, there will be a struggle for Irish freedom: British oppression begets nationalist resistance. Hence, despite political intiatives, military considerations remain decisive.

The present policy of repression reveals truth: that there the really going on in Ireland. We in Britain must take advantage of this shift in imperialist policy. As the murderous activities of the British Army become more apparent it is more difficult for the left and the labour movement to evade It is not easy to present the British state as the agency for progressive re- Six Counties forms in the troops are gunning on every street corner. At the same time, the arguments for immediate withdrawal become that much more plausible.

Why Britain can't withdraw Much of the confusion on the British left stems from an inability to understand why British troops are in Ireland in the first place and why be withdrawn. Sometimes British radicals try to explain Britain's refusal to withthe profits draw by from the Six expropriate But everybody knows that maintaining the British occupation is a very costly one that far outweighs any business revenues that may flow back to London.

Another argument is popular in Labour that the British Government left circles: would withdraw were it not for Loyalists in the Six Counties, a commthan unity more one million which insists on Britain staying the division of maintaining This "Loyalist veto' argument is merely the mirror image of the British state's that its aim is merely propaganda the democratic rights protect majority in the Six Counties.

version of this tail apology for British off the British imperialism shifts the blame on to the local agents of British rule in the Six Counties.

The British ruling looked on Ireland as different from its other colonies. Its proximity to Britain has given it a strategic importance that no other colony possessed. That's why as 1801 as early Act of Union was passed class was prepared to fuse Ireland with British state. the prepared to ment was but it colla never hold over Ireland. By the turn of the twentieth century, the integration Ireland into the British political system that the Tvement Home Rule precipitated constitutional and political crises. Curragh mutiny in 1914 showed that the British Army was not prepared to see Britain's close links with Ireland severed, nations by democratic Instead consensus to the • commander ish Empire' pression is a war the issue. Six Counties has immediate domestic when its down nationalists of the British countenance ist system. they can't coherence of the British companies the Irish question. Counties. in Britain. the strong and Cyprus. Ireland. to to Kenya or Cyprus. of the class The left's wagging the dog' connection. domination lets hook and class has always the year when the the ruling The British establishcompromise, agree to release its of for Irish series of The even if Parliament acquiesced to some other, looser form of British domination.

Even in its weaker moments British imperialism insisted on keeping its grip over Ireland. To have withdrawn from Ireland altogether before the First World War would have created the prospect of instability in Ireland and, more importantly, in Britain itself. The example of a free Ireland would have created irreparable damage to Britain's Empire as other would have demanded the same treatment. At the time, Partition seemed to be the perfect solution. It provided a semblance of independence for the South and it divided the republican movement and the Irish working class. Most importantly, it legitimised Britain's presence portraying it as a response to the aspirations of a carefully (constructed majority in the north east.

the old-style colonialism, Britain substituted a facade of democratic to justify its domination. Partition was a major coup that promised to solve the Irish problem once and for all. No wonder that Lloyd George called the signing of the Partition treaty the greatest day in the history of the Brit- As everybody knows, Partition did not solve the Irish question. The artifical state it created in the Six Counties proved to be inherently unstable. The local Parliament at Stormont Castle stood for Loyalist privilege and the oppression of the nationalist population. A cycle of repression and resistance and more refinally more resistance erupted into armed conflict in the early 'seventies. Rather than being a solution, Partition itself created permanent instability, In fact, today the Irish problem has become an even greater problem for Britain. The division of Ireland was complemented by the total fusion of the into Britain. Anything that happens in the Six Counties now repercussions. Withdrawal from Ireland now would be tantamount to dismantling a part of the British state itself. No significant section ruling class could ever this, would represent a major blow to the capital- Partition has simply raised the stakes.

It has turned a colonial situation into one that is at the very heart of British polities.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the British state depends on its continued domination of Ireland.

This is the revolutionary significance of Withdrawal from Ireland would weaken the capitalist class and its state to such an extent that it would fundamentally alter class relations One of the great failures of the British left is its underestimation of the importance of Ireland. The Irish War is seen as an issue of third-rate importance: comp arisons are often made with Kenya and The British establishment is under no such illusions - it fully understands that retaining Ireland is a thousand times more important than hanging on The British ruling knows that its own survival depends on the maintenance of the Irish The Irish Freedom Movement in conference before the Bloody Sunday march How they see it Since 1969, one bourgeois after another has stated in plain words that withdrawal from Ireland would have catastrophic consequences for Britain. Sometimes this point has been made sensational, even simplistic in Thus Tory MP A J Beith argued in 1976: I do not see how we can contemplate akin creating something 20 miles off our own shore. interests outside Ireland that would be only too willing to go in with money or arms to advance one or other of the causes which would be fighting for control of a province which would be left without legitimate law or order'. Labour politicians have usually been closer to the point. domestic upheaval that withdrawal would imply. Roy Mason was famous for putting the imperialist case in forthright terms: We would be fooling ourselves if thought that the bloodletting that would flow from the precipitate withdrawal of troops would be confined to Northern Ireland, The undoubted violence could easily spread to the mainland with its Irish population."

Left-winger Stan Orme hammered home this point at the 1979 Labour Conference. He warned that the chaos that would ensue in 'overflow into the cities of Britain, into the Liverpools and the Glasgows and the Londons, the Birminghams Manchesters'. an element of rhetoric, but they do underline the importance British attach to the maintenance They know that the stakes are very high and that what is at issue is the integrity of the British state and the maintenance of law and order on the streets of England, Scotland and Wales. has always been above Almost instinctively, Labour, Liberal and Tory alike understand that the wat in Ireland is an immediate and mortal threat to the British ruling class before which unity is essential. Why Ireland matters for us The clarity and determination of the British ruling class stands in sharp contrast • to the diffuse and evasive outlook of the left. It has become one of the left's preoccupations to try to convince successive governments that it is not in Britain's best interests to stay in Ireland.

been many attempts to trivialise the issue reducing the war in Ireland to ordinary colonial conflict — such as Kenya or Vietnam. The object of this exercise is to show that it is possible for Britain to withdraw from Ireland and that therefore all decent people can get together to put pressure on the government.

some establishment figure vacillates and calls for troop withdrawal the left clings on for dear life. calls for troop withdrawal or Tony Benn suggests replacing British troops by United Nations forces, a major celebration takes place. These pathetic attempts to discover some common sense, don't impress anybody. explained: politician in Ulster concern the way. to Angola compromise ..There Northern defeat of the other. emphasising the the issue is Ireland. we Party against imperialism. Ireland would the issue and the These statements contain action. politicians of Partition. the war imperialist That's why Ireland party politics. people to the Irish quest for brought results. There have an solidarity movements' working class. Every time working class. When the Daily Mirror British ruling class to interest of workers, in Ireland peaceful solution Certainly, the the liberation movement. imperialist the British working class.

enemies. their Emillions. eration. Ireland ruling class knows that coercion is the only answer, as the editor of The Times recently The differences so stubbornly insisted upon @ost fundamental of all political issues: allegiance, national identity, the legitimacy of the state,.. These are issues which are usually disposed of only when one side prevails decisively over the other."

For the ruling class there is no room for - the stakes are too high.

In a war, the victory of one side implies the All the attempts of various old Irish solidarity campaigns to appeal to liberal sentiment and The Guardian sense of justice, humanity and fair play have been rejected with contempt.

These sentiments simply do not exist outside a narrow circle of liberals. They are always in particularly short supply when The reason why tens of thousands of CND supporters have no time for Treland is because they are on the side of the British Army.

They may have many reservations, they may object to the use of torture and plastic bullets, but at the end of the day they accept the British establishment's version of the war.

The last decade has shown conclusively that only those who have taken a stand on the side of the Irish people, on the side of the liberation struggle and on the side of Irish freedom, are prepared to protest The moment that of war is evaded the objective of building an anti-imperialist movement is effectively abandoned. That's why the IFM insists that the issue of war must be at the centre of all solidarity There are other evasions too.

The pressures that lead many to remain silent and to vacillate on the question of immediate troop withdrawal the antilead others to avoid taking case to the working class.

Looking for quick results, the left has periodically discovered' social groups that spontaneously support the cause of Irish freedom. First it was students, then it was women; recently the list has grown longer - ranging from the Liberal Party to black community to unemployed youth. All these sections have an important place in the solidarity movement - but nobody can be won to the anti-imperialist movement without antiimperialist arguments. In practice, the ready-made allies has not It has simply highlighted the necessity for a programme of antiimperialist action in Britain.

What is really ironic about the old futile "get-richquick' campaigns is that there does exist a social force whose objective interest lies with the victory of the Irish people: the We know that there are no easy solutions. We know that decades of Labourism have left their stamp on the But that only proves the For if we scope of the tasks in front of us.

recognise that any blow which forces the retreat is in the this provides our measure of how important Britain's defeat would be for the workers' British workers have a direct interest in the successful resolution of the liberation struggle; they are the only social force that can give effective solidarity to This is the crux of the matter. In a sense, we have no choice: either an antimovement built in the working class or we will have no effective solidarity action in Britain at all. Anybody who rejects the perspective of the IFM can do nothing for either the Irish people or The British ruling class is tooling up for a new phase of the Irish War, Tomorrow we march on the streets of Leeds to remember those who have fallen. Let's resolve to match the determination of our Let's not mince words we have to match them and more. They may have their sophisticated technology and But on our side rests history: the cause of freedom, of lib- If we are uncompromisingly bold, imaginative and resolute in the cause of Irish freedom, the cause of the British working class shall triumph.

the next step, March 1983 5

Ireland wrong politics use of plastic bullets in Ireland.

THE IRISH FREEDOM

condemns the use of plastic bullets by the British occupying forces We condemn plastic bullets Counties. because we oppose all aspects of British rule in Treland and because we support the struggle for Irish freedom.

opposed to the Labour campaign against plastic bullets because it tries to isolate plastic bullets from British domination over Ireland and refuses to take sides in the War. Every example of Labour's Shadow Cabinet has announced that it will recommend that the Party's vote against the renewal MPs Prevention of Terrorism Act in It is interesting to note that many members of the Shadow Cabinet were members of the 1979 Labour Government that introduced the PTA - including one of its chief architects Ireland . for Northern This reversal of policy does not reflect any shift in Labour's approach to the War. As Michael Foot and others Irish have argued, the Labour Party has not gone 'soft' on the IRA. The real reason for this decision has little to do with Ireland and much more to do with the Party's desperate Labour alternative policies to those of the Tories.

6 the next step, March 1983 Labour's plastic bullets conference Wrong issue, wrong time, After more than a year of silence and inactivity the Labour Committee on Ireland has backed a campaign and sponsored a conference on the Mick Kennedy reports.

MOVEMENT

in the national an attempt We are also Party's narrow

OT COETO

Labour leaders change tune Bipartisanship of the inside Britain. March. Party remains for solution equivalent -former Secretary Merlyn Rees. action free zones. inoperable. for search British repression in Ireland must be used to mobilise working class support for the British liberation struggle. socialists should not single out particular features of Britain's machine of terror in persuade the British to government to adopt alternative methods Lead bullets: the real problem It is more than 10 months since anybody was killed by a plastic bullet in Ireland.

Tones will with the continue as long as the Labour Party emphasises its interést in civil liberties As long as the Labour committed to a British Ireland, the PTA or an will re- 'anti-terrorist' main in force, no matter which party is in government. Anti-imperialists should use the Shadow Cabinet's announcement to press Labour leaders to take practical against the PTA. The IFM has already called on several Labour-controllcouncils to declare their areas PTA- If the Labour Party means what it says it will take part in the fight to make anti-Irish repressive legislation Yet in the last three months nine members of the nationalist community in been shot dead by lead Counties have These are the victims of the latest bullets. wave of shoot-to-kill murders carried out by special hit squads appointed by the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Shoot-to-kill is no new departure for the British forces in the Six Counties.

the since community to British rule erupted in the late 'sixties, shoot-to-kill has Army's operational principle.

Sunday in 1972 paratroopers shot dead 14 unarmed protesters; in the decade since, literally hundreds of nationalist people have been shot by British soldiers, British policemen or their Loyalist paramilitary allies. The nationalist people hostility to British rule by voting in large numbers for Sinn Fein in the Assembly elections last October. responded in characteristic fashion - it unleashed more police and a hail of lead nationalist against the Britain's to the

BESDOTISC

elections confirms that it rules in Ireland, not through pollncal through plastic bullets, but through bullets made of lead and troops who hesitate to fire them. be to demand the immediate withdrawal British troops from Ireland, not to quibble over the material from which they make their bullets. Two years too late Since the Irish War began, 14 people have been killed by rubber or plastic bullets.

The deaths have been concentrated in two • years - in 1972 when two people died and 1981 when seven perished. These were both years of major street protests and mass demonstrations 1972, and in support of the hunger-strikers in 1981. In 1981 plastic bullets were used in vast numbers to contain the riots and quell the angry protests that greeted the deaths of the hunger-strikers.

seven deaths, hundreds of people, including many children, injured by plastic bullets.

There might have been some point in a campaign against plastic bullets in 1981.

But why has the Labour left waited two years to launch its protest?

struggle in the Six Counties has shifted away from mass plastic bullets are scarcely being used.

Indeed this is why the Labour Party has this time to initiate its plastic chosen bullets campaign. strikes the prominent Labour MPs, trade Irish war video

TUC

censor strikes The leadership of the TUC cannot be accused of complacency about Treland.

Last December the Irish Freedom Movement video on the Irish War was shown to a group of trade unionists at a meeting organised by Tameside Trades Council.

The video, which looks at the war from the point of view of the Irish national has liberation struggle, circulated in the trade union movement for some time. Now the TUC has decided that it has the right to regulate which videos trade unionists are leaders the Six conference, campaign Blocks was commus Ever of the nationalist been the Labour Party campaign On Bloody bullets. their In showed their or part of the problem?' ended question The British state you on?. are community Assembly institutions, not do not One Our response must- Liberties to this question: current." - against internment in alternatives As well as Square in were mutilated ort state. Today the demonstrations, and During the hungerpeople.

TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Trades Council been widely allowed to and Communist Party officials who today back the plastic bullets refused support the for political status in the H- They would not even take up the issue of plastic bullets for fear it might embarrass the British government when it pressure in under intense Ireland and abroad over its brutal treat- But two ment of the hunger-strikers years later when the hunger-strikers are in their graves, the time is right for a against plastic British imperialism the ultimate health risk' leaflet for the Manchester conference, the organisers inquire, "is the plastic bullet part of a political solution, This is an 'openit receives no answer. Nor do the organisers have any answer to the question, which side in the Irish War However, their preoccupations indicate that they are more concerned to find an alternative means by which Britain can rule in the Six Counties than they are to mobilise support.for the struggle against the British occupation.

of the leading members of the campaign against plastic bullets- Jonathan Rosenhead - asks in a recent article in the journal of the National Council for Civil what other alternatives are there to plastic bullets?' (Rights, October- December 1982). He has lots of answers "Strobe lights to produce fits, electrical water jets, projection of slugs of icy brine, the firing of barbs trailing fine wires (the taser) which are used to paralyse the victim by a high electric Rosenhead does not approve of these - he reckons that all have 'strong health risks. He goes for a more static, linked-arms police strategy', much as was used against students in Grosvenor 1968. Evidently Rosenhead understands very little about the conflict between the Irish people and the British The Labour left's ludicrous quest to help the Army find a nicer way of crushing nationalist resistance in Ireland exposes the politics of the plastic bullets campaign.

Like all previous Labour Party initiatives on the Irish War this campaign begins from a refusal to support the national liberation struggle against British rule and an acceptance of the right of the British state to impose its solutions on the Irish watch. The letter shown above was sent by the TUC to the Secretary of Tameside The threat to discussion on Ireland implied in this letter should be resisted by all. trade union militants. Watch this column for further developments. And get your union branch or trades council to view the IFM video and discuss the situation in Ireland. The IFM will be glad to provide a speaker and the video for your organisation. Contact Helen Swift BM RCP, London WCIN 3XX

IFM week of action against the PTA it in Britain. SINCE THE INTRODUCTION of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1974 there has been considerable disquiet in liberal circles about the arbitrary and coercive character of this legislation. In nine years, more than 5 500 people have been detained for periods of up to seven days under the PTA - an average of nearly two a day. White wash The aim of these detentions is to harass supporters of Irish freedom in Britain and in particular to terrorise community. Less than 2 percent of those detained have been charged under the PTA. This is an indication not of the ineffectiveness of the act as the liberals claim but of its usefulness.

pathiser with the Irish cause summarily detained, excluded from Britain and harassed under the wide powers which the PTA gives to the security forces.

The PTA is the main weapon in the arsenal of the ruling class for fighting the Irish War at home. It not only suppresses Join the fight to Smash the PTA: protest activities organised in London, Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester London Monday 14 March Torchlit commemoration of the centenary of Marx's death March in honour of Marx and the Fenians Assemble 6.30pm. Marx's grave, Highgate Cemetry, (Archway tube) Indoor rally at: Islington Central Library.

Fieldway Crescent, (off Holloway Road) nr Highbury Corner Tuesday 15 March 12.30-2pm Picket: Smash the PTAI Central Law Courts, The Strand Wednesday 16 March 5pm Vigil to protest at the detention of more than 5 500 victims of the PTA Trafalgar Square Friday 18 March 7.30pm Public Rally Smash the PTA! British Troops Out of Ireland Now!

Holborn Public Library. 32, Theobalds Road, WC1 (Holborn tube) Manchester Thursday 3 March 7.30pm Public Meeting: Smash the PTAI Stretford see the next step sellers for details Thursday 10 March 7.30pm Public Meeting The Irish War in Britain The Black Horse Inn, The Crescent, Salford The Prevention of Terrorism Act 'Stemming the infection' The publication of Lord Jellicoe's Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976' in February confirms the British state's determination to continue its policy of repression in Ireland. It also confirms that it is time to mobilise against Irish War. introduced necessary to Ireland', SDP leader,

HOW

terrorist activity'. the Irish PTA look more just: Any symncan be terrorist threat remains'.

"terrorism'. the republican camp. Tuesday 15 March 12am Public Meeting Smash the PTA! The Sidney Building, Manchester Polytechnic Wednesday 16 March 3pm people under the PTA Oxford Road Thursday 17 March 12am Public Meeting Oxford Road Thursday 24 March 7.30pm Public Meeting Ashton-under-Lyne Thursday 31 March 7.30pm Public Meeting Wythenshawe potential domestic opposition - it also insulates Britain from the effects of the When the Labour Government the Act in 1974, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins argued that it was infection from "Stem the This respected civil libertarian, called for 'rigorous controls between Ireland and Britain at the ports. to keep people out, to send people back if they in any way encourage Just what Jenkins had in mind was shown last December when a delegation of Sinn Fein leaders was prevented from visiting London.

Lord Jellicoe's brief was to make the his Review does precisely that. His recommendations are a whitewash. He notes that the PTA Should be continued as long as a substantial But of course he is very selective in his definition of Loyalist paramilitaries are not the problem - only the fighters of Thus he concludes that the UDA and other Loyalist murder The St. John Ogilvy flute band in action on Bloody Sunday Picket of Manchester's Ringway Airport to protest against the detention of 90 Assemble 2.15pm, University steps, Fight for Irish freedom - Smash the PTA!

Manchester University Students Union, Fight for Irish freedom - Smash the PTA!

AUEW Hall, St Margaret's Street, The PTA and British workers see the next step sellers for details squads need not be banned. Embarrassed by the lack of anything much to say about the PTA, Jellicoe recommends that the words "Temporary Provisions" should be removed from the title of the Act. Even Jellicoe realises that calling "temporary" after nine years is stretching a point a bit too far. On the nod Jellicoe's whitewash is typical of the British state's attitude towards the Irish War. The ruling class does not concer itself about civil liberties interests of British imperialism are at stake.

When the PTA was renewed last year it took Parliament just 88 minutes to deal Most MPs stayed away and the with it. rest were half asleep as discussion proceeded and votes were counted.

The annual renewal of the PTA is usually accompanied by ritual protests from a handful of Labour MPs about the arbitrary process of the Act. Last year a few even voted against the renewal of the

PTA.

Unfortunately this opposition to the PTA is more rhetorical than real.

Labour left MPs go along with the view that Irish terrorism is a problem, but they argue that the PTA does not fight terrorism effectively. According to these MPs the PTA breeds terrorism because it indiscriminately harasses all Irish people.

establishment has little trouble with these friendly critics of the PTA. Last December when Michael Foot complained that the Home Secretary's powers to prevent the Sinn Fein leaders from moving from one part of the United Kingdom' to another 'an anomaly', was That is not an anomaly', she him Sheffield Wednesday 16 March 7pm Public Meeting Why Marx supported Irish freedom fighters AUEW House, Furnival Gate Coventry Wednesday 16 March 12-2pm Friday 18 March 12-2pm Smash the PTA! Protest outside the General Post Office, Hartford Street Birmingham Grant French, former British soldier speaks out against British terror in Ireland Tuesday 15 March 12.30pm Bourneville Further Education College Wednesday 16 March 1pm Room D415, Perry Bar Site, 9 December 1982). The British an act conscience. when the determined to Britain. Manchester The class. Thatcher soon shut arrested Thursday 17 March 1pm Students Guild Corporation Street Roy Hattersley Smash the PTA! Stratford Road Leeds 4-5pm Public Meeting Leeds 1 *14-19 March Friday 18 March 7.30pm Public Meeting Smash the PTA! Public Rally Freedom Movement. Phone 01-274 3951 Ireland declared, it is inherent in the Act, which Mr Foot's Government passed' (Hansard stablishment can dea asily with legalistic objections from civi libertarians and reformists with a guilty In the meantime it can get on with the job of preventing the 'infection' from spreading to Britain, PTA week of action Every year the PTA is renewed as a matter of course. This most repressive of all Acts of Parliament passes through with barely a comment. The Irish Freedom Movement change of this state affairs. The PT A is a double-edged weapon.

In the hands of the ruling class it is an but effective instrument of repression for anti-imperialists the PTA can provide a direct focus for bringing the War to Our campaign against the PTA can show that the Irish War is not miles away across the sea in Belfast and Derry, but is being fought in London, Liverpool, and Birmingham. We can subvert the PTA by exposing its aims and showing that the real terrorists are all in the camp of the British state.

The IFM has organised a week of protest action against the PTA to coincide with the March renewal of the Act in Parliament.

During the week from 14 to 19 March we have organised a series of meetings, pickets and other protest action in Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Sheffield.

Help us make the PTA an issue in the British working Speak out for the two detainees yesterday. today and every tomorrow for the duration of the Irish War.

Birmingham Polytechnic Unity Lounge, Aston University Friday 18 March 12.30pm Hall Green Technical College Thursday 17 March 3pm Make the West Midlands a PT A-Free Zone!

Lobby of West Midlands County Council Saturday 19 March 9.45am Picket Shadow Home Secretary Sparkbrook Labour Club, Monday 14 March - Friday 18 March Daily anti-PTA vigils outside the Henry Moore Gallery, Headrow Thursday 17 March 7.30pm Make West Yorkshire a PTA-Free Zone!

Victoria Hotel, Great George Street, Liverpool Films, meetings, exhibitions, bookstall at the University The Irish Centre, Mount Pleasant Saturday 19 March 11.30-2pm Make Liverpool a PTA-Free Zone!

Assemble outside the Town Hall, Dale St Victims of the Prevention of Terrorism * Act in Liverpool: contact the Irish the next step. March 1983 7

The British solidarity movement.

Ireland

KEN & BENN

SAY

NO A

LOYALIST

STATE

THE

OPPOSING demonstrations with their different objectives signify a profound divergence in the British solidarity representing in a sense. movement, the end of the first phase of the Irish solidarity movement in Britain, Through- 'seventies the most influential the section of the movement was organised Troops Out Movement and its by the sympathisers in the its inception, TOM sought to influence public opinion rather than build an antiimperialist movement. ship believed that a movement uniting liberals, reformists and other opinionmakers' would be the form of solidarity. It rejected the criticism of those who called for a move.

ment to be built in the working class and directed against the British state.

TOM went out of its way to appeal to humanitarian principles and the traditions of British democracy which its leaders placed great faith. This search for the middle ground led TOM to drop its defining demand for Out Now' on its first demonstration in October 1974. The aim of this concession was to placate the moribund British Peace Committee, sponsors of the march. By the summer of 1975 TOM had forgotten all of its original demands and adopted the awkward slogan No to a Loyalist state' search for moderate desperate forced TOM to distance itself from the republican movement. After London in bomb attack 1976, a TOM bulletin issued a stern condemnation: Bombs such as the one at West Ham can only weaken support for the Irish struggle The middle ground' Inevitably TOM began to lose more and more of its supporters. It split in 1977 and since that time has moved away from public activity group politics. By 1980 a loose alliance of TOM activists, Young Liberals Labour left politicians emerged at the head of Irish solidarity work in Britain.

This bloc has proved entirely unsuccessful in mobilising support for of the Irish people. Instead it has become part of he Labour left's electoral machassignment for this party inside the Irish community.

The anti-imperialist alternative the "seventies the section of the solidarity movement was very much a minority. But as TOM began to crumble, and as every one of its initiatives nroved more futile than even the most fervent believer in British fair play began to lose importantly, the Smash the PTA Campaign and later the Irish Freedom Movement began to organise actually attracted new people of Irish freedom. cause The Ireland we initiated inside the working class showed that it was possible to win workers to the banner of anti-imperialism.

The IFM argued that it was impossible to evade the Irish War with flabby appeals 8 the next step, March 1983

VOICES

OK

PLEASE

BRING

US

OUR

BOYS

HOME

Labour left. From The TOM leadermost effective earlier by and fair play in Troops stand: and the solidarity one of the said that these The support with Growing

IRA

became apparent on January ary lobbying, proved elusive. became apparent even supporters. towards pressure ment. an d in defence shut up shop. the cause of activists, the declarations to win support jectives. own objectives anti-imperialist even more the last, and Concentrate MPs. heart. More Party. campaigns that to the debate on has followed Labourism: the defence

RANAL

JOINT

CAMPAIGN

FOR

SEEKING

BRITISH

WITHORAWAL

FROM

IRELAND

to commemorate the second Troops Out Movement "Voices for Withdrawal'. Pat Roberts explains.

to justice and morality. We took a clear that in a war there are two sides movement had to be on the side of the Irish freedom fighters, not somewhere in the middle. Further, we could act- STelen tually make sense to British workers because their class interests lay squarely the defeat of their own state for this support approach the streets durin the hunger-strikers in 1981.

While TON and the LCI concentrated on parliament- IF emerged as the the most active foret in the solidarity movement. During the period of the H-Block protest the irreversible decline of TOM to its staunchest The year of the hunger-strikers marked a turning point in the solidarity moveof TOM The moralistic message and its allies failed to mobilise anybody of the hunger-strikers. In response to this debacle TOM virtually Reduced to a handful it about influencing set Labour left. It hoped that soggy from Labour Party politicians could galvanise support for its ob- However, by this time TOM's far from clear. It certainly ceased to talk about immediate troop withdrawal. Last year some of its members argued that it should become drop its opportunist, formal demand for withdrawal of troops, on cultivating Labour Today all that's left of TOM is a name and a few friends in the Labour Fools rush in The rest of the old solidarity movement TOM's trajectory. The Revolutionary Communist Group used to pride itself on its independence from now it acts as cheer-leader for the Labour left. It has been vocal in of Ken Livingstone despite

IRISH

POLITICAL

STATUS

Now

TROOPS

OUT OF

IRELAND

Split down the middle During the first week in May there will be two demonstrations on Ireland. On 8 May Sinn Fein, the Irish Freedom Movement and other anti-imperialist forces are organising a demonstration in Birmingham anniversary of the deaths of Trish hunger-strikers. A counter-demonstration is being organised a day - supported by Committee on Ireland and other reformist trends - under the slogan his condemnations of the national libcration struggle. The RCG has recently denounced the IFM for criticising Peter Tatchell, the Bermondsey by-election. The even invented anti-imperialist credentials for Tatchell. Whereas Tatchell himself has publicly stated that he stands by Labour Party's policy RCG makes out that the immediate troops! The RCG's move into the orbit of the Labour Party symptomatic political bankruptcy of the old solidarity The failure to base solidarity movement. work proletarian on reluctance to fight for Irish freedom in the working towards Labour's camp. Time to choose Both TOM and the RCG have turned what remains of their energies against anti-imperialists. In December they both announced that they will be demonstrations. The RCG's ration to be held in March, and TOM'S to be held in May, are desperate organisational measures attempting to guarantheir own survival. Both TOM and tee the RCG knew that the mobilisation for the commemoration of Bloody Sunday January in was the most task for anti-imperialists. throwing their weight behind this demonstration organised by Sinn Fein, the IFM and other anti-imperialists, they began to mobilise for their demonstrations months ahead. At its meeting on 13 December 1982, TOM's steering committee cynically instructed its supporters not to work in the local mobilising committees for the Bloody Sunday For its part, the RCG spent the weeks leading up to the Bloody Sunday demonstration talking about its plans for March and demanding speaking rights for the January commemoration rally. Not surp-

SELF

DETERMINATK BLOCK

FOR

ALL

BRING

THE

WAR

To

BRITAIN

SMASH

THEPTA!

risingly onstration. erialists. Sinn changed its under the slogan the ten

RCG

would the Labour for Blocks. reasons to organise and other Labour candidate in the solidarity new RCG has prominent the on Ireland. the Tatchell calls for British IFM out. arguments, of the der. politics and the class inevitably leads solidarity revive its holding demonstation and liberals. serves. important Instead of mined to assist the imperialism. only one interest ing class. of the working class. 8 May commemoration. determination. from whatever place on

SMASH

FIGHT

FOR

IRISH

FREEDOM:

TROOPS OUT

NOW

the forces' which these two groups represent were conspicuous by their absence on the day of the dem- Since January, these two groups have spent all their time attacking anti-imp-

TOM

has even questioned Fein's right to commemorate its own martyrs in May. In the event, after considerable embarrassment, TOM has tune and argues that its demonstration, to be held a day before the anti-imperialist one, will now be "Voices for Withdrawal' and will not commemorate the hungerstrikes. This weak attempt to hide their objective of sabotaging the 8 May mobilisation will fool nobody. If they were serious anti-imperialists,

TOM

and the have mobilised for the commemoration of Bloody Sunday and the 8 May protest against the Hthey invent spurious their own efforts which just happen to coincide with antiimperialist mobilisations. It is no surprise that the Labour Committee on Ireland reformist fringe groups are fully behind TOM's plans, The RCG-TOM campaign against the movement has become increasingly bitter, At the Bloody Sunday rally a leading RCG member threatened Sinn Fein activists with physical violence. At South Bank polytechnic TOM supporters have united with Labour student bureaucrats to keep the Unable to counter political the has-beens of old the solidarity movement are forced to resort to bureaucratic manipulations and slan- It's their way of saying that their prime concern is organisational survival and not the struggle for Irish freedom.

Let's forge ahead The two demonstrations in May express two conflicting class interests. Under the umbrella of the Labour left, the old movement will attempt to connections with reformist and liberal circles. The refusal of this movement to fight for support for the Irish liberation movement, and its orienttowards the labour bureaucracy indicate which class In direct contrast, the 8 May commemoration of the victims of the H-Blocks will carry the banner of antiimperialism. It will be a demonstration that's unequivocally committed to the struggle for Irish liberation and deterdefeat of British In Britain, this can serve that of the work- The IPM has no interests apart from those of Irish freedom and the liberation Let's make the demonstration in Birmingham an example of anti-imperialist unity and Every anti-imperialist quarter has a rightful For the this demonstration, first time the choice is clear: Irish freedom or more British meddling.

By-election battle Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians. Take matters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Takematters into your own hands

UNTE

Promises Don't believe them! Don't leave your future to the politicians! Take matters into your own hands

VOTE

EDEN

Bermondsey by-election 24 February 1983 Revolutionary Communist Party is in full swing. in its Politicians never tire of making promises.

for Southwark Council and Parliament.

new promises about Remember all the lame excuses about the actually building them? seriously Fran pared to go to prison for it.

promises. seen anything yet to cut down on everything.

work dwellings ceased. live a life of degradation and poverty.

Bosses profitat our expense course. them. We need jobs, houses, see a profit in it. Bermondsey a better place.

Why? rich must show a profit. shut up'. have it both ways. Blame the bosses much power have too ones on the Thames? standards are 'mindless militants'.

against police harassment are 'muggers'.

the terrorists'. their state and their system action of workers against the employing class.

first. As we go to press the Bermondsey election campaign Whatever the outcome it seems unlikely that the RCP will capture a seat at Westminister first parliamentary election.

What we have The future in your hands The people of Bermondsey have been promised a lot by politicians running Remember all the Bermondsey? council houses in 'difficulties' in Today the air is full of promises of more jobs for Bermondsey - but nobody can take them The promise is Eden has only one promise to make.

this: unless working class people in Bermondsey take matters into their own hands, things will go from bad to worse.

Nothing has ever been won without a fight. Parliament only granted working people the right to vote after they were pre- This manifesto isn't full of It is about what we intend to fight for and why.

Slump- you haven't Millions are on the dole, Those who still have a.job are forced Things we took for granted in the past are now becoming "luxuries". But this is only the beginning.

In Southwark there are 40 people chasing each job vacancy.

More than 20 000 have no jobs - one in five men are out of The housing situation is appalling.

About 11000 are unfit for human habitation.

Thousands of families have yet to be rehoused and are forced to live in intolerable conditions while they wait. New building has simply Unless we do something now, our children will grow up to There is nothing natural or inevitable about all this.

radically different kind of society events, would not take this But today - in capitalist society - goods are only produced if Britain's bosses are certain they can make a profit from hospitals, nurseries and lots besides; but we will get none of them unless the employers can The resources exist to make our lives more comfortable and But factories are empty, millions have to sign on and none of us can afford the things we need.

Because at the end of the day the account books of the When politicians tell us to 'be realistic' about pay, welfare facilities or economic recovery, what they mean is 'put up or Butathe past decade has shown that what's realistic You can't from their point of view is unrealistic from ours.

Either the law of profit wins or we do.

Those who run Britain arrogantly blame others for the problems their system has created. We're told that the unions but how many powerful union branches are there in Bermondsey? We're told that millions of those claiming benefit are scrounging off the state - but how many neighbours do you have who are living it up on the dole?

We're told that black people have put white people out of work - but how many black dockers have taken the place of white People who fight back get given the worst treatment. Trade unionists who take industrial action to defend their living Young blacks who hit back Every Irishman who wants Britain out of his country is in league with - or one of - This musn't be allowed to go on any longer. They may try to divide us - but every working class man, every working class woman has a common interest in uniting against the bosses, The eştablishment always says that "we are all in it together.

By this they mean that we should make sacrifices for them.

But should workers in Bermondsey unite with their exploiters?

The only unity that will benefit Bermondsey is the united A vote for Fran Eden is a vote for that unity. It's a way of saying that the independent interests of workers must come It means embarking on a struggle to restore past cuts in manifesto on which Bermondsey. bosses say 'we can't afford it' used. Our future- Revolutionary Communism of the vast majority. Take Southwark Council. unrealistic. plans, but they come to nothing.

inquiries and thick reports.

removed, Take it!

RCP

Bermondsey In a We demand

WORK AND A LIVING WAGE

• jobs for all - and wages to be determined by local committees of working class people

A PROGRAMME OF PUBLIC WORKS

all the other amenities we need

FULL EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

• adequate nursery facilities all mothers • a woman's right to work • free contraception and abortion on demand

FULL RACIAL EQUALITY

Nationality Act • an end to police harassment of black youth departments, in the NHS and on the dole • an end to discrimination at work

FREEDOM FOR IRELAND

• the immediate withdrawal of British troops • self-determination for the Irish people Prevention of Terrorism Act

FULL EQUALITY FOR HOMOSEXUALS

with that for heterosexuals

AGAINST THE WAR DRIVE

• working class action to disarm the bosses • an end to secret diplomacy and NATO out the world

BERMONUSE

acquired is invaluable experience for the battles against Labourism that lie ahead. Herg we reprint the Fran Eden campaigned in social services and to guarantee everybody a living wage. The We should tell them that they can but they won't - and that we are quite ready to wrest control away from them over the way Britain's resources are Our future depends on building a society organised to fulfil our needs - one in which 'realism' means what's in the interests Bermondsey needs a fresh start. We're offering the only fresh start that's realistically possible: revo lutionary communism. All of the 'alternatives' that politicians.

dream up to bridge the gap between us and them are simply It works out brilliant All we get is committees, Job schemes, but no jobs.

Community development schemes that just don't develop.

It Revolutionary communism is a genuine alternative.

means ridding ourselves of the class of parasites who grind us down. We know that our problems will not be solved overnight.

But the basic obstacles that today deny us our needs will be Revolutionary communism gives you a real choice. We have no hidden loyalties - our only allegiance is to the working class.

For the first time you have a chance, not to vote for a politician, but to register a commitment to fight for a better society.

• an all-out construction drive to build houses, nurseries and • child benefits that guarantee the economic independence of • an end to all immigration controls and the scrapping of the • an end to the race checks ('ethnic monitoring') in housing • an end to the harassment of the Irish community under the • no discrimination against homosexuals in employment • no state harassment and victimisation of homosexuals • the age of consent for homosexuals to be brought in line • immediate withdrawal of British troops from the Malvinas • full solidarity with anti-imperialist movements throughthe next step, March 1983 9

Economy Atlantic, panic swept through the London currency markets.

against the US dollar. Phil Murphy analyses the falling pound.

THE TORIES blame Labour. Back in November, shadow Chancellor Peter Shore proposed a 30 percent devaluation of sterling as part of his alternative plan for British capitalism. According to Margaret Thatcher, the men in the foreign exchange markets took fright at the thought of a returned Labour government committed to devaluation and began to devalue sterling themselves. Never mind that these fears have about as much chance of being realised as Labour has of providing Bermondsey workers with council houses with gardens! Labour blames the Tories.

Michael Foot claimed that the pound fell because the financiers had finally seen through the follies and fantasies of Thatcherism'. Labour's scourge of the 'gnomes of Zurich' has discovered that the money markets are not moved by anti- Labour prejudices but work according to capitalist principles of rationality.

Now. playing the part of the rational capitalist he wants to raily the bankers to his side in an attack on the Tories policies.

There is no shortage of explanations for why sterling slumped. The more astute bourgeois commentators play safe and cite as many as possible. If we look at the underlying cause of sterling's decline we can see that there is more to it than they would like to admit. Why bother? The exchange rate of the pound has an importance far beyond the pages of the 10 the next step, March 1983 While Margaret Thatcher was visiting her favourite colony in the South Dealers fell over themselves to mark down sterling's value to its lowest ever level financial press. A 'weaker" pound, with a lower exchange rate, means that everything purchased from overseas will be more expensive for the working class: holidays, food, clothes and video recorders.

Industry in Britain will also pay more for raw materials, and take advantage of less foreign competition to put up prices. Devaluation meanslowerlivingstandards unless workers can force employers and the state to maintain them.

In Tory and Labour recent years governments have not favoured devaluation because of its potential for provoking social conflict. A falling exchange rate encourages wage demands. It also gives the bosses some room to pay up because their competitive position internationally By the late is improved for a period.

seventies, Labour saw this problem and tried to promote a stronger exchange rate.

This was meant to discipline British bosses to stand up to competition -by standing on their workforce, raising productivity and backing Labour's wage-control The Tories continued this line policies. able to rely of action, but were better on unemployment to push down wages.

The devaluation of sterling is another weapon in the Tory armoury against the working class. However, Thatcher was none too keen to deploy it, unlike Peter Shore and the Labour Party, She exclaimed that devaluation is not a substitute for improving the efficiency of industry. Thatcher's reluctance arises from her own dreams about the best manner of reviving British capitalism. In reality, the depth

STERLING

SLIDES

The pound in your pocket of Britain's decline has produced devaluaction as a mechanism for slashing living the capitalists" standards to prop up profits. The pound talks Why did the value of the pound slump on the foreign exchanges? The decline really began last November: in the period to early February the value of sterling fell by 11 per cent. One popular explanation therefore was the Treasury's November forecast of a current account deficit on the balance of payments for 1983, after the f4.6 billion surplus in 1982, But then in February, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD made a contrary forecast of another surplus for 1983.

This was unable to push up the exchange rate again. So much for forecasts.

Another explanation was the decline in British interest rates: from 16 per cent in late 1981, the bank's base rate fell to nine percent by November 1982. This was supposed to have undermined speculators' confidence in sterling because they could no longer make a high return by sticking But their money into sterling assets.

interest rates were falling throughout the world, and no faster in Britain than else- Given the drop in the rate of in-e where. flation as a result of the recession, interest rates were still very high in real terms.

Interest rates rose again in November to prop up the pound, but their previous fall had little to do with sterling's decline.

The explanation that comes closest to the truth is that all the fundamentals were against sterling. This is just a polite, technical way of saying that the clappedout state of the British economy had to be reflected in the value of its currency.

There are two main aspects to this.

First, take Britain's oil export revenues.

Since 1977 these have played a crucial part in bolstering British exports at a time for when, most other commodities, Britain's competitive position in the world market was worsening. Last year net oil revenues amounted to £4.6 billion when the non-oil trade balance was in deficit the tune of £2.4 billion. No wonder that the glut in the oil market caused by the world recession - a glut which would inevitably cut of prices - produced so much concern in the foreign exchange markets, and in the Thatcher Government.

This concern was met by devaluation.

Before devaluation, the recent $3 fall in the dollar price of oil instigated by the British National Oil Corporation would slashed the sterling value of oil have revenues, and the oil tax revenues of the British Government. Now Geoffrey Howe can rest assured that El billion will not disappear before his eyes, and before his Budget in March. Second, the real problemis Britain's low productivity. Despite the cost cutting and greater levels of exploitation forced British on workers last year, British capitalists are still way behind their rivals in the competitive league. Just looking at the number of industrial robots in operation indicates their technical backwardness. Last year Japan had 13.000 industrial robots, the USA had 6250, West Germany: 3500, and Britain just 1152, Sterling's precipitous devaluation is a of British sign capitalism's decline. It means that despite the support which the exchange rate had from high interest rates and oil export revenues, the low productivity of industry has finally come to be reflected in a lower value of the pound.

Thus every day worked in Britain is now worth less in terms of the world market than it was before sterling fell. A lack of productive investment by British capitalists - because of their low profit levels means British capitalism has been devalued too. Now, more than ever, they can only go forward by cutting our living standards.

The Ides of March The fall of the pound is said to be a blow to Chancellor Howe's plans fora giveaway' Budget on 15 March. But like all the other journalistic terms of the financial press, 'giveaway is misleading too.

Howe was only planning to allow what British capitalism could afford anyway, and this predetermined that industry would be on the receiving end of any concessions on The devaluation of sterling will simply remind the Chancellor that he must take world economic factors into account when doing his sums. Despite the volatility of interest rates and exchange rates, the uncertainty of the future price of oil, the grim prospects of an economic uptur and the likelihood of a major loan default, all the indicators press Howe in the same direction: more austerily measures.

Manufacturing output still stagnates at levels last seen in the sixties; unemployment is still rising and investment and profits have failed to recover.

For the bourgeoisie this indicates the need for continuing the squeeze on the working class, because in a situation where Britain's rulers are up against more than bracing competition abroad, they have to maintain control at home. For the working class there will be no "giveaway' Budget, Nothing will be done to restore the value of social security benefits. Cuts in personal taxation will do little more than compensate for the extra burden caused by inflation.

Instead, Howe will do all he can to ease the agony of. British capitalism as it staggers through another year Meanwhile the capitalists and their state will attempt to grab the benefits' holding devaluation by down wage Whether it is holding out increases. against the water workers' pay demands or, like Hyster Corporation, the forklift truck manufacturer, asking for a 13 per cent wage cut to guarantee jobs, the ruling class is determined to make the working class foot the bill for sterling's slide on the foreign exchange markets.

We have no particular interest in seeing the pound at one or another level against other currencies. What we are determined to do is ensure it is the capitalists, not us, who pay for their crisis.

A LABOUR MOVEMENT CONFERENCE FOR THE 'EIGHTIES

PREPARING FOR

POWER

and debate, politics and polemics 16-22 July A week of discussion Central London г'). Saturday consumptionism 16 July Marxist celebration of the Marx Centenary communism. A full day of workshops and special sessions on Marxism after Mats. An evaluation of the theories and politics of the giants of the Marxist tradition Lenin and Trotsky and the dwarf Stalin; revisionists from Bernstein and Bauer to Althusser and Poulantzas: political economists of neo-Ricardianism, underand capitalist collapse: British Marxists from the tragedy of Hyndman and Morris to the farce of Hindess and Hirst: Marx on Women, Marx on Ireland and Marx on the transition to Sunday 17 July Specialist courses begin:

SERIES OF SIX WORKSHOPS ON

•Introduction to Marxism •Racism what it is and how to fight it •Women oppression and emancipation @imperialism in Africa •The British working class today •Ireland - the longest wat

OTHER SESSIONS RUNNING

THROUGHOUT THE WEEK

•Soviet Union and Eastern Europe •The working class in the West •Revolutions betrayed •issues in British policies: left, right and CND

PLUS: DEBATES

featuring stars of learned journals puh rooms and street corners

AND: FILMS. MUSIC AND

ENTERTAINMENT

PREPARING FOR POWER

KARL MARX CENTENARY

The theory Karl Marx died on 14 March 1883. A hundred years later his name is known throughout the world. Millions of workers see in his doctrines their theoretical weapon for the struggle for emancipation. A century after his death Marx is still hated and feared by class contributed more to the cause of proletarian revolution than Marx. A hundred years has passed since his death yet he continues to haunt the enemies of the working class.

MARXIS is the theory of the Bourgeois proletarian revolution. theoreticians try to smooth over conflict and sing the hymns of harmony and stability; Marxism articulates the antagonism between the classes. Many theoreticians before Marx wrote about the class struggle but he was the first to demonstrate *that class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat' In other words, Marx demonstrated that the class struggle was not some episodic and aimless occurrence but the historic agency of social change.

Marx showed that working class power is not an unrealistic utopia but the logical outcome of the class struggle within capitalism. The of Marx's theory is relevance indicated by the fact that in every generation since his death a new group of bourgeois ideologues is assigned to refute it. It is not only the capitalist establishment that fears Marxism. Social reformers whose aim is to make a few minor modifications in the oppressive structures of capitalist society see Marx as a threat to this project.

Often they are the most vociferous in dismissing Marxism as irrelevant.

Thus the foreword to a recent collection of articles entitled Exterminism and Cold War edited by the New Left Review claims that the nuclear age has made Marxism irrelevant, Ironically, while Marxism is dismissed as out of date, the pre-Marxist utopian socialists come in for strong recommendation: The resources of that utopianism will need to be drawn upon and developed again, if socialism is to confront with any realism the universal threat of a military explosion that would annihilate every class*. Marxism has survived its bourgeois condemnations and its reformist revisers for the simple reason that the class struggle cannot be argued out of existence, Every "definitive" rejection of Marxism has been refuted by the realities of capitalist society. The triumph of Marxism will be decided on the same plane in the heat of the life or death struggle between classes. Our task is not to celebrate the individual, but to develop Marxism in relation to present day conditions. We aim to make Marxism a guide to action for millions of workers. Throw away the icons! The bitter enemies of Marxism in the capitalist class pose few problems for us. Bourgeois ideologues can make only superficial criticisms and their views consistently fail to capture the popular imagination.

A much greater danger comes from the attempts to subvert Marxism by those in the labour movement who claim to uphold his heritage.

During the past century there have been numerous attempts to turn Marx into a harmless liberal. Many 'Marxists" have sought to reconcile Marx's theory with capitalist realism, ridding his theory of its revolutionary of proletarian revolution the capitalist and for good reasons. No single individual has content. Lenin condemned those who celebrated Marx only to repudiate Marxism: 'During the #fetime of great revolutionaries the oppressing classes relentlessly persecute them, treat the teachings with malicious hostthe most furious hatred and dity, the most unscrupulous campaign of lies and slanders. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise and to surround them, so to say, their names with a certain halo for the 'consolation' of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping them, while at the same time emasculating the content of the revo lutionary doctrine, vulgarising it, and blunting its revolutionary edge.

At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists in the labour movement concur in this revision' of Marxism. Marxism has long been a harmless icon in Britain. At British universities students lear about Marxism as a series of trite formulae; a great revolutionary is portrayed as a clever academic. A journal entitled Marxism Today publishes articles which advocate incomes policy, demand that law and order and nationalism become part of the left's programme and urge political alliances with Liberals and other middle class parties. While Marxism Today muses about class alliances the other Marxists' put class collaboration into practice. So-called "Marxists' inside the Labour Party are busy preparing for the next projecting a penera election, version of Marx after their own image. Thus the much-feared Militant Tendency rejects the need cosmash the capitalist state. It proposes a "peaceful road to sochalism and implies that Marx too was a parliamentary cretin. degradation of Marx This expresses the desire of the British left to narrow the horizons of the working class. It is our job to destroy this caricature of Marxism and degradation of working class politics by rescuing the revolutionary content of Marx's theory.

Living Marxism To defend Marxism we have to develop it. Too often, even communists have fallen into the trap of treating Marxism as a dogma that and proves everything. etnams Marx's collaborator Engels warned of this stagnant scholastic approach shortly after Marx's death: 'All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined in detall before deduce the attempt to is made the political, civil-law, from them aesthetic, philosophic, religous, etc, views corresponding to them. Up to now very little has been done in this respect because only a few peopie have got down to it seriously."

Marxism has to be developed and tested in light of new developments.

Otherwise revolutionary theory will be left behind by social experience.

Lenin emphasised this point in his introduction to the Bolshevik programme in 1899: We do not in any way regard Marx's theory as something final and inviolable, we are convinced on the contrary, that it only laid the cornerstone of science which socialists must push further in all directions, if they do not wish to be left behind by life."

Lenin's exhortation is particularly relevant today. The capitalist world is in a state of flux. All the old assumptions about economic prosperity have been shattered by the recession. No social class or institution is left untouched: the working class has undergone major changes, Without Marxist theory it is impossible to understand these events and to keep ahead of the rapid shifts in society. That's why we have organised Preparing for Power, a week of discussion and debate about Marxism and working class politics today. No time for complacency The creative development of Marxism requires familiarity with the categories and concepts of Marxist theory.

ВЗАД Thus we have organised a specialist

SCEX CMY

course and a series of workshops under the title Introduction to Marxism. For those already familiar with Marx's work there will be more challenging workshops explaining different aspects of revolutionary theory. Theory cannot be developed in a vacuum. We have to know what is going on in the world and be able to identify problems to work out the solutions from a working class point of view. Many of the workshops are designed to examine the present stage of the class struggle in Britain and abroad. A six-part course will look at the British working class while other workshops will examine class relations in Europe, the USA and elsewhere. There will be a choice of more than 16 workshops on the of the recession, present stage Imperialism and liberation struggles.

Our presentations of these subjects will avoid technical jargon so that even the least experienced participants can learn and take part in the discussion, Marxism is not simply about Lenin unveils the Marx and Engels memorial in Moscow in 1918: the Bolshevik revolution th theory - it is above all about how to fuse theory with the class struggle.

was the best commemoration That's why so many of the workshops will be given over to a discussion of the major political questions of the day. From a six-part course on the oppression of women to a series of discussions on the arms race - from the problem of housing to living on the dole. The choice is yours! Despite the films, music and other events the aim of Preparing for Power is not to entertain. There is no time for complacency. The crisis facing the working class is a test for all Marxists. What's at stake is not some academic debate but the survival of the working class - indeed of humanity. But ideas are important - revolutionary theory is a weapon that will tilt the balance in favour of workers and the oppressed. A hundred years after Marx's death, Preparing for Power is a fitting celebration of his ideas and his politics - a call to arms on the side of the working Len in with Trotsky, who later carried the Bolshevik tradition in the struggle against Stalinis class. union and the Comintern

Opening plenary - •Marxism since 1945: humanism, -and beyond structuralism • The Marxism of the Second Intemational: revisionism and social democracy •The Marxism of the Communist International: from Lenin to Trotsky Sunday 17 July - Friday 22 July @Introduction to Marxism If you think the fetishism of commodities is what goes on in sex shops or that 'abstract labour" is what people do in institutions of higher education, then this course is for you.

Or if you're fed up with selling your La bour-power and simply trying to get the best price for it, and you want to know how to get rid of the whole wage system, then it's for you too.

before •Imperialism in Africa Africa is sinking into starvation and chaos. The British press hypocritically condemns the brutal mass deportations from Nigeria: but these result from the artificial borders Britain and France have imposed on Western Africa and the recession throughout the imperialist world which demands barbaric solutions in impoverished Africa. From the Horn to the Cape and Morocco, this course will survey imperialist strategy, the African ruling he Soviet elites and the struggles of the masses, Saturday 16 July Marxism after Marx •Was Stalin a Marxist?: No •Is there a British Marxism?: Not quite • Developments in the Marxist theory of crisis: Grossman and Mattick the missing links • Marxism and women: Engels and after Spreading the revolution: Lenin meets Italian revolutionaries 1920 In the week Series of six workshops • Racism - what it is and how to fight it. Many people believe racism is a problem of attitudes, which are deeply ingrained and teproduced, in the heads of working class people. We think racism is a product of capitalist society, promoted in the labour movement by generation after generation of Labour and trade union leaders. This course examines racism and anti-racism today.

WHITE

BEAUTIFU

• The British working class The aim of this course is not to provide history lessons or to discuss "the downturn'. confront the real problems arising out of the impact of mass unemployment, the changing structure of the working class and the weakness of its political (as distinct from trade union) traditions. The integration and neutralisation of shop stewards; the incorporation of activists into local government and other state quangos; the paralysis of the TUC and the influence of radical reformist politics are some of the issues we will be dealing with. to the IRA •Women - oppresston and emancipation spontaneously Real Freedom will continue at party. •Ireland - the longest war strategy, military, political and in Ireland and the solidarity movement in Britain. The object is to •Marx on Ireland: from the IRB •Marx on the transition: workers' control means workers' revolution PLUS - Marx's London - an early morning walk around the places where the great man lived and worked.

The debate between feminism and Marxism initiated by Kate Marshall's Preparing for Power. So will discussion of the family, the unions, abortion, employment and unemployment, women and peace, women and war.

and women and the revolutionary The war in Ireland has now been going on so long that many people becoming involved in revolutionary politics can scarcely remember when it started. This course will review the history of Britain's longest war in Ireland, It will also examine British ideological, the republican movement Other sessions Soviet Union and Eastern Europe • New directions for Andropov?

• The national question in the Soviet Union • Poland after Solidarity Revolutions betrayed • Britain 1945? • The demise of the Comintern 1929-1939 Revolution in Germany 1919 The working class in the West • Crisis for the communist parties • The new social democracy • The peace movement

PREPARING FOR POWER

• Women under Stalinism • The strange history of the theory of state capitalism. • Moscow vs Washington - the new colo wai • Germany 1919 - 1923 • Germany 1929-1933 • Spain 1936 1939 • Racism in the car factories • Reagan's domestic difficulties • Can Japan's workers rise again

the next step

PREPARING FOR POWER

Issues in British politics

KEEP FARES FAIR

•Who's next for a GL grant? How the left became one big quango • Police prepare for civil war; lett calls for community accountability would like to attend 'Preparing for Power' and enclose €8.50 registration fee (£5.00 unemployed with UB40) Name Address Trade union/organisation Accommodation • Creche Subscribe monthly in 1983 •Who's afraid of Maggie Maggie Maggie? The myth of Thatcherism 12 issues for £5 • Fighting for gay rights • Life in a socialist republic - the Sheffield experiment •Will the real Labour left stand up?

•De-industrialisation and depression - the West Midlands experience •Which way in the general election?

•Unemployment and the job creation fraud •Fighting militarism - or protesting about American missiles?

Enquiries: phone 01-274 3951

POPLAR

BOROUGH COUNCIL

MARCHINC 70 THE

HIGH COURT

AND POISIBLY TO

PRISON

EONALISECUR

ON RATE:

POOR BOK,

@A short history of British socialism Cheques payable to RCP Association Send to BM RCP, London WC 1N 3XX review of the Revolutionary Communist Party Send cheques to Junius Publications, BCM JPLTD, London WCIN 3XX Tell us something new! Thousands of people are taking on the capitalist system in their own way, day in day out. Many activists have important experiences which they have little opportunity to share with others. We want to overcome the isolation of individual militants and bring them together to exchange ideas and formulate problems and solutions together. Preparing for Power provides a chance for you to let others learn from your experience. Many workshops will be run by veterans of industrial disputes, anti-racist campaigns, solidarity work and other aspects of the class struggle. Now is your chance to come and argue things out and assess past victories and defeats. Write to us, let us know your interest and well make sure that Preparing for Power really does help to prepare the working class to seize power. We can't afford to wait for another Marx centenary!

MICHAEL FOOT inherited a defeated and divided Labour Party shortly after the May 1979 General Election.

had suffered a major loss of electoral support following the winter of discontent' when it had attempted to force down the wages of some of Britain's lowest paid The Labour public service workers. Government's insistence on pay curbs and drastic cuts in public spending alienated the senior trade union leaders, especially those in the public sector, from the leading figures in the Cabinet - James Callaghan and Denis Healey. The left, at that time dominated by Tony Benn and Eric Heffer, emerged relatively unscathed from the later years of the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government.

Both played their full part as ministers under Harold Wilson in winning labour movement support for the Social Contract.

But both were squeezed out of the government after the 1975 BEC referendum and were thus able to escape responsibility for the consequences of the policies of industrial rationalisation and wage control of which they had been staunch advocates.

But the left, and Benn in particular, was not popular with the Parliamentary party which blamed 'extremists" Labour the election. When Callaghan went, union bureaucrats carried on their Foot was grudge against Healey. obvious compromise candidate.

Foot was acceptable to the union bosses as the man who had administered what few legislative concessions they achieved under the Social Contract. Foot opened the doors of the corridors power (or at least of guango committees) to union bureaucrats, with an unprecedented zeal. And he was well respected by the party at Westminster as one of their debating club stars, who had shed most of his youthful radicalism. At the beginning of 1980 Foot took over a party with a membership which had declined steadily over 30 years and a popular vote which had fallen even more precipitously over the same period. Union power The rise of the Social Democratic Party in 1980 and 1981 was a measure of the crisis The SDP had no inof the Labour Party. ternal dynamic of its own - no great issue and no mass of enthusiastic supporters drove its three lack-lustre leaders forward.

- Owen, Williams The gang of three' Rodgers the SDP. and became picked up Jenkins on the rebound from Brussels, entirely because of the decay of the Labour Party. Labour's continuing decline was indicated in poor by-election performances, opinion polls and internal squabbles. he conflict over the denuty between Healey and Benn leadership which raged through 1981 revealed the Labour Party turning in on itself as its base of popular support outside withered Healey's hair's-breadth away. reflected the even balance besimply tween the traditional right, supported by the Parliamentary party and the more bureaucrats, and an right-wing union equally narrowly-based left.

by constituency activists and the more The post itself radical union officials. had merely symbolic significance.

The internal turmoil of the Labour Party meant that its usefulness to the union leaders was being seriously reduced.

The bureaucrats founded union Labour Party to pursue their interests in Parliament. At a time of rocketing and Tory. unemployment measures, the unions badly needed some political clout. Thus in 1981 and 1982 the unions moved in to try to sort out Labour's problems. Senior barons, guided by GMWU chief-David Basnett, strengthened party finances and installed veteran union fixer Jim Mortimer as Secretary. They also intervened to end a decade of left control on the national After last year's conference атесттіте the top union cabal was in control of the money, the machine and the manifesto-drafting apparatus.

Foot was the best leader the unions had got - so they rallied around him.

But the unions' salvage operation could not overcome the two central problems that had resulted in Foot's assent to the leadership in the first place. One was the steady erosion of Labour's traditional The Labour Party The party The CrISIS for losing the certainly of and Foot is a disaster; but who can they replace him with?

Party. victory working class base. failure to recapture that key section of supported middle class opinion on which Attlee in the 'forties and Wilson in the 'sixties had both built their election victories.

The missing millions The changing social composition of the the working class has traditional support. workers. engineers, anti-union have been Labour supporters virtually since the party was founded.

sections of the working class are in chronjc decline. Unions which have grown rapidly in recent years - NALGO, CPSA,NUT are not even affiliated to the Labour Party.

Mass unemployment has made the rela- General tionship of workers to the Labour Party even more tenuous. Labour's working class individual membership (as majority who are affiliated through their unions) has never been high: today it is at an all time low. and opinion polls confirm a falling-off of working class supportfor the Labour Party.

has As Its Isolation Labour leadership has become more aloof and the party more bureaucratic.

one reason why there is no obvious successor to Foot. Labour's leading figures leadership As Labour's standing in opinion polls drops even lower and a general election draws near, Michael Foot's leadership of the party is coming increasingly into question. But the problem goes beyond the pathetic figure of Foot: he simply personifies the profound crisis of the Labour The other was its sadly wanting. weakened Labour's Railway and textile miners and dockers Walworth Road. But all these the past party and the working class.

nificant scale. many, especially younger.

opposed to the vast All recent elections rities. increased, the 'positive This is campains. can only nous sign over the tivity deals. not the structive that they tion leaflets existence. matters right. people. today - Silkin, Shore, Hattersley - were the backroom boys under Wilson's regime.

They are a bunch of mediocrities whom history has pushed to the fore and found Foot was cast as a fringe backbench orator under Wilson. As party leader it is painfully apparent that even as stumps an orator he is third-rate. Today's pretenders to the Labour leadership have no natural appeal and no significant base of support outside the committee rooms of The Labour leaders of MacDonald, Attlee, Wilson at least had strong personalities and some relationship with the rank and file of the At the same time, Labour has failed to win back middle class support on any sig- The only section of the party which has even attempted to build a new base is the left. Prominent figures like Benn and Livingstone have been trying in a rather uncertain way to drum up support for Labour among women, gays, the Irish, blacks, and other ethnic mino- Labour left councils have partieularly tried to promote the party in these sections of society through well-publicised policies discrimination" for women and blacks and providing council funds for women's centres and feminist defeat, Labour movement Whatever success meets these initiatives it is clear that they cannot compensate for the loss of working class, and broader middle class support. Indeed it is also apparent that these attempts to steer the Labour Party towards diverse minorities internal tensions, exacerbati eter Tatchell personifies the problem The growing backlash from traditional Labour supporters against 'positive discrimination' gestures for blacks in areas like Hackney in East London is an omiof more trouble ahead for the Labour Party. Bitter and twisted The trade union bureaucrats have taken Labour Party but they cannot The impact of the resolve its problems. cession on their own organisations hasleft them little extra time or energy to meddle in the Labour Party. Loyal Labour unions like the NUR, the AUEW, the ISTC, and even the TGWU and the NUM are fighting for their own survival against closures, mass redundancies and punitive produc- Even if they knew what to do about Foot, they are unable to pay sufficient attention to the crisis of. the Labour Party of the leading figures in the Some Parliamentary Labour Party are beginning to despair of its future. Thatcher presides over economic disintegration and mass unemployment - but Labour's fortunes still inexorably decline.

Even when the Tories blunder - as over the NHS dispute or the waterworkers strike Labour can- The demise of seize the advantage. the SDP seems unlikely to help Labour's election prospects. And on top of all this Boundary Commissioners have deprived Labour of some of its safest seats, and precipitated a new round of re-selection squabbles No wonder Labour's right is becoming bitter and twisted. Its behaviour has cer- John Golding, the scourge of the national executive, will stop at nothine in the relentless witchhunt of the Militant Tendency, Other senior party figures have made no secret of their feeling would welcome a defeat for Peter Tatchell in the Bermondsey by-elec- Their confiscation of his election on the pretext that they were printed by Militant certainly helped to make this more likely. Meanwhile John Silkin is conducting a vendetta against the Bennite Tribune which threatens the very of the Most of these paper. are now before the courts: this itself is a measure of the degree of rancour that now accompanies the fragmentation of the Labour Party The left is in no better shape than the A recent national conference held by London Labour Briefing to bring together supporters of its radical line from around the country attracted barely 50 All reported local inactivity and demoralisation; most could see nothing ahead but another defeat. Meanwhile the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy has been tearing itself apart over whether or not to register under the terms approved by the party conference as the framework for expelling Militant. After the Campaign's founders threatened to take their home if the radical entrists into the campaign refused to play by their rules, they finally secured a qualified victory. Out in the real world, the left is as isolated as the right. All the Labour left's propaganda sheets called for a big influx of campaigners to canvass for Tatchell in Bermondsey. But on the streets, nobody was to be seen - except for a few everloyal Militant supporters, their leaders due for expulsion on the eve of the poll.

Whoever succeeds Foot the Labour Party is in poor shape for a general election.

Its only popular issue nuclear disarmament - is a constant cause of division among the parliamentary leadership. The revelation that the last Labour Government, which included Healey and Foot, was complicit in negotiations to install cruise missiles in Britain has not helped the party's anti-nuclear credentials. As the Labour Party staggers, discredited, riven with strife, and concerned only with its own survival, towards another election what better time to build the party of the future? the next step, March 1983 15

MILITANT SUPPORTERS regard Liverpool as their model achievement: what doing today, other cities Liverpool is will do tomorrow' Derek Hatton in 1981 (Liverpool Echo, 10 December). In fact, far from indicating future trends nationally, Militant's position in the Liverpool Labour Party is largely due to the peculiar historical weakness of Labourism in Liverpool.

Rotten traditions *Liverpool is rotten and we had better recognise it said Labour Party leader Ramsay MacDonald in 1910, MacDonanticipated the ald's assessment iculties which would confront Labour's over the following attempts establish a solid base to in the city. Two characteristics of the working class in Liverpool help to account for its traditional resistance to Labourism. At the turn of the century, about a third of the city's population were immigrants, of whom the vast majority The national and religious were Irish. affilistions of these workers important influence, not only on the way they voted, but also on the whole social of and political culture communities in the city. In the Protestant areas, social life tended to focus on the Orange Lodge or the Working Men's Conservative Association clubs. Protestant workers voted 'as Unionist as possible" for organisations like the Protestant Electoral Federation, for Loyalist indepor for the Conservative and endents Unionist Party. In the Catholic commmost workers voted for the unities, Irish Nationalist Party until it was incorpinto the Labour orated late twenties. Thereafter they voted for Catholic politicians on the right wing of the Labour Party. religious In addition to the occupational structure of the working class had an important bearing on local politics. Employment was concentrated in and around the docks: Liverpool had a high proportion of casually employed, workers. unskilled were highly unionised and very militant before the First World War, The nature of their employment meant that these workers were more inclined to seek improvements through informal controls over their work, direct bargaining with the employer or through industrial action.

They did not have much respect for the unions' official negotiating machinery.

Dockers leader James Sexton summed up the frustrations of the emerging trade union bureaucracy: I and my reforming colleagues quickly discovered that our big fight was to be with the chaotic want of discipline, the ignorance and petty jealousies within our ranks, rather than with the employers/ (quoted in Merseyside in crisis, Merseyside Socialist Research Group, 1981) These workers also had little enthusiasm for the political wing of the official labour movement and the parliamentary politics of the Labour Party.

The combined effects of these factors had serious consequences for the Labour Party in a city with a substantial middle class involved in the trade and commerce of one of Britain's major ports. While the bourgeois parties had a secure base, workers either didn't bather to many vote, or voted for parties or candidates other than Labour. As a result Labour did not win a majority of parliamentary seats in the city until 1945, and took control of the city time as late as 1955 shortly afterwards. The Labour Party slowly increased its electoral support among Liverpool workers in the post-war period. The break-up of traditional working class communities and relocation to large council estates, the decline of sectarian tensions in the working class and a decrease in the relative importance of casual work - all helped Labour to attract more working votes. Nevertheless its position class remained insecure. Labour lost control of the city council between 1961 and between 1963 again 1970. The turnout in 16 the next step, March 1983 said local councillor Braddock and ments, particularly diffdecades the failure of support iorate seemed to Liverpool. had an working class Labour lost Garston 1979 the Hill to shortly Democrats Derby (a veteran and James Dunn campaigner). Party in the elections. divisions, support, The casual trades" Post recently hard. merely an extension of it.

council for the first -only to lose it Harrison selected been pool from eight to six. Labour right, 1967 and Rather than working class elections wards at local and national remains among the lowest in the country: until recently, constituency organisation in many areas was non-existent.

Up to the carly 'seventies the Labour Party in Liverpool was dominated by a succession of right-wing cliques led by 'boss' figures like Luke Hogan, Jack Bill Sefton. Repeated backtracking on local election commiton housing issues, provoked widespread working class opposition to Labour, manifested in demonstrations, rent-strikes and independent tenants* candidates in local elections.

Labour's sell-outs paved the way for the Liberal Party's "community politics" in the 'seventies. Local issues, together with of the regional policies of successive Labour Governments to amel- Merseyside's economic plight, meant that by the late 'seventies Labour be heading for eclipse in Militant moves in Between 1979 and 1981 the decay of Liverpool Labourism accelerated dramaatically: Militant stepped in to resuscitate First what was very nearly a corpse.

to the Tories in general election and Edge the Liberals at a by-election afterwards. Then three local Labour MPs defected to the Social Eric Ogden of West right-wing hack), Dick Crawshaw of Toxteth (a Lieutenant Colonel in the Territorial Army) of Kirkdale (a notorious anti-women's rights, anti-abortion Within two years, Liverpool's Labour representation at Westminster dwindled from seven to two (of the eight seats in the area). Council of confirmed the collapse of local Labour's already fragile base Militant was small - but well-organised, diligent and above all loyal to the Labour Party, While some local MPs, fearful for their own seats, continued to denounce Militant, other party officials were more Militant pragmatic. They recognised in supporters the saviours of the Labour machine on Merseyside. As one bureaucrat told the Financial Times, they're very hard working, they'll lick stamps, fold pamphlets, canvass tirelessly for the party, speak at all sorts of meetings!' (7 November 1980). The Liverpool Daily noted that moderate leader of the council's Labour group John Hamilton has always held back from criticising the tactics of the hard left within the group, despite obviously suffering at their hands' (10 January).

Hamilton's reticence is not the result of political masoghism. He recognises that however much he might dislike Militant's abrasive style, the party needs activists; and when it comes to cadre, Liverpool Labour Party can't afford to pick and choose. But Militant supporters are not simply tolerated because they work The Liverpool example demonstrates that far from being a threat to they Labour's reformist tradition, A question of programme programme corresponds to the interests of the working class on Merseyside. You know, the 35 hour week, the programme of useful public works, the demand to nationalise the 200 monopolies, through an enabling bill in Parliament." (Militant editor Peter Taffe, Liverpool Echo, 11 December 1981) By the end of 1982 four Militant support ers. Terry Fields, Tony Mulhearn, Terry and Derek Hatton, had candas parliamentary idates for Liverpool constituencies. The proposed boundary changes, however, will reduce the number of seats in Liver- This raises the prosect of a confrontation between Eric Militant and Liverpool's left MPs Heffer (Walton) and Bob Parry (Scotland Exchange) - or with former left-wing MP Eddie Loyden (Garston). only to the But Militant objects to left reformism. not Heffer, Derek challenge Liverpool % 100 90 80 70 60 50 1924 1919 Labour in control Hatton diplomatically decided to concentrate on his local government work' and stood down. Peter Taffe emphasised that Militant would not oppose reformists in the Labour Party: "Eric Heffer will walk it. Militant wouldn't put up, wouldn't compete against Eric Heffer because he's stood for the interests of the rank and file of the Labour Party." (Liverpool Echo, 11 December 1981) What Taffe means is that Heffer has opposed the expulsion of Militant. The fact that Heffer upheld the wage-cutting Social Contract as a minister in the last Labour Government and loyally supports present Labour leadership is no the reason for Militant to oppose him.

Indeed Militant's programme for Merseyside is in practice from that of the Labour opposed to unemployment Militant is _ because it causes social instability.

This is how Hatton explained Militant's position shortly after the riots of 1981: It's been shown in a survey that over per cent of young unemployed people actually believe that violence is the answer.

Now we in no way condone violence but we can understand why it's happening, and we feel that the major cause of it is the fact they've got no job opportunity, no hope for the future.

So obviously jobs are crucial' (Liverpool Echo, 10 December 1981) Militant's "solution' to unemployment in Liverpool has two aspects.

local authority should the *a massive house-building programme Second, it should take over firms closing down or making redundancies as 'mun- This. icipal enterprises'. dependent on the election of a Labour and ultimately on a Labour Council, Rovernment with 'socialist policies.

For faced with workers now, or the thousands who have lost their jobs in the last few years, this strategy can only ability and will to fight unemployment.

Indeed in cases where Militant has been involved in real struggles for jobs its interventions have been characterised by their irrelevance and subservience to the trade union bureaucracy occupied Meccano Liverpool is the stronghold of the Militant Tendency. Three prospective Labour MP's in Merseyside and around a quarter of Liverpool's Labour councillors are Militant supporters. However, as Dave Farrell reports, no place better exposes the hollowness of Militant's claim that Labour is a mass party of the working class - or the emptiness of its own claim to provide a working class alternative to the traditional leadership.

1934 1929 Labour in opposition ant councillors and factory at Speke. with workers priorities Militant pressure class through little different leadership. Tony recognise a mass party has won or even constituency The been First, engage in socialist party from of course, is The left. survives redundancy an organisation undermine the Militant supporters: Labour Party working When workers their factory it belongs. The degeneration of A tale of 1949 1939 1944 for 16 weeks against its closure, Militcalled on the Liberal/ Tory-controlled Council to take it over, dragged workers into a pointless debate about product viability. It was the same over the closure of the Dunlop Revolutionaries who are concerned with fighting unemployment seek to arm class an independent outlook which rejects the bosses' criteria of viability and profitability. Militant's preventing social disorder and securing votes for Labour - render them incapable of cariying out this task is being witch-hunted by the Labour leadership to appease ruling exerted the on the media. The Liverpool example illustrates what left-wingers like Heffer clearly Renn and Eric - that Militant supporters are both useful and harmless. It also illustrates in a striking way some more general truths about the Labour Party.

First, the Labour Party has never been of the working class. It votes and working workers' class people have been formally affiliated to the party in their millions by the trade union bureaucrats, But, unlike many continental labour movement parties, Labour has never organised millions thousands of workers. many parties have always middle class and predominantly and they remain so today. Second, the Labour Party cannot be turned into a Militant's within. attempts to achieve this have led it to adapt more and more to its host, to the extent that it has now adopted the role and the politics of the traditional Labour Labour Party in Liverpool thanks partly to the today Militant Tendency. The destiny of the Militant Tendency is to revive and sustain contain that exists to We ask and betray the working class.

up the why prop when you can build a alternative? The Revclass olutionary Communist Party's new Liverpool branch has begun the battle to put the Labour Party in its grave - where

working class politics two cities disarmament. Labour's working class base.

1969 1959 1964 954 power occasionally - and its support is currently declining.

SHEFFIELD IS PROUD of its traditions of working class radicalism. The city has played a major part in every workers" movement from the Corresponding Societies of the late eighteenth through Chartism, to the formation Labour and Communist the modern The past half century, however, Parties. has seen a steady decay of working class politics in Sheffield. During the First World War the shop in the engineering industry stewards Sheffield were in the vanguard of industrial resistance to the war. Sheffield provided the national movement with one of its most dynamic and talented leaders later to become a found- Jack Murphy ing member of the Communist Party. His book Preparing for power remains a key source on the early British labour movement. Its title indicates an objective long abandoned by the party he helped to build.

At the time, Sheffield and Glasgow led the working class movement, as another Stanley leading shop steward, observed: I believe that if there was a serious stoppage in Sheffield, it would mean within a few days practically the whole country would be ablaze ....I do not know why Sheffield has that when Sheffield but apparently reputation, decides to do anything it is a sign for all large centres to follow." The Sheffield Trades Council welcomed the Russian Revolution in 1917 and supported the fight for national independence in Ireland throughout the Tan War.

The spirit of class independence in Sheffield took a heavy battering through the 'twenties and 'thirties, to be decisively extinguished in the Second War. There were many angry protests against unemployment and wage cuts, but the degeneration of the Communist Party, combined with the dead hand of Labourism prevented any serious challenge to capitalist attack. In the the period trade union militants largely confined their activities to the workplace, while the labour bureaucrats took their Sheffield lies at the centre of the 'socialist republic of South Yorkshire.

Its left-wing council is celebrated in Labour circles for its cheap bus fares, its progressive housing policies and its commitment to nuclear Yet as Grant French reports, the strength of the left in Sheffield in reality reflects the influx of middle class activists into leading positions in the local labour movement and the erosion of • Percentage of council seats held by the Labour Party Sheffield Liverpool 1982 1974 1979 Labour Party control over the Council has been the norm in Sheffield for more than half a century; in Liverpool, Labour has only enjoyed places in the local corridors of power.

Municipal managerialism With only two brief interruptions, the Labour Party has controlled Sheffield Council century, of for over 50 years. In turn the Couricil has provided the power base for the local Party Labour Blunkett recently paid tribute to the first Labour Council in 1926, those pioneers who laid the foundations for the socialist city of which we are all so proud'. In fact in the foundations on which modern Sheffield was built were the wartime devastation of large areas of the city centre and the post-war vitality of the steel and engineering industry. the opportunities provided by the postwar boom to set up a model of efficient municipal administration.

Labour's major achievements were in reducing atmospheric pollution and in sium clearance. cleaner and cleaner and its views ever sharper as more and more factories cut Burgess, back production or gether as a result of the recession. And the city's once celebrated high rise housing developments, Hyde Park and Park Hill, have become even worse slums than the ones they replaced. ments are considered for early demo- Labour still cynically claims its lition. squalid housing record as one of the achievements of its 'socialist city.

On the Council itself, the Labour Party was led by sober, moderate administrators: Roy Hattersley was its proudest product.

A right-wing hack apparently from birth, Hattersley spent many years as a Sheffield councillor before ascending to his present high rank in the Labour leadership. Out- World side the Council, the Sheffield Labour Party was moribund in the fifties and "sixties. kept ticking over by the local trade union officials and sitting MPs, but little else.

There was no such thing as a constituency post-war activist in those days. Most of the MPs in the area were solid right-wingers closely linked to the trade union bureaucracy. In shots miners were supreme. Party rally or demonstration. Sheffield of working class politics.

republic of South the Labour Party. outs or closures. under threat. activist. 1983 January For working class area, another area Manor, estates, only 10 showed up.

* Sharrow, members bourgeois. Council leader David social teachers, workers supporters The Labour Council seized Today Sheffield's air is getting down altoclose While other developinitiative what is the point of it?'.

itarian tendencies". class politics in Sheffield.

There was an electoral machine, ment committee. Burgess, Brown Firth Sheffield the engineering union called the in much of South Yorkshire ising the workers. The Labour Party won the votes of Sheffield workers but there the relationship ended. When left-wing MPs emerged in the early 'seventies - Martin Flannery and Joan Maynard - they relied on their close associations with the Communist when they wanted to mobilise a few Sheffield workers for an anti-Tory The socialist republic The Labour left in Sheffield today likes to lay claim to an uninterrupted tradition In fact its tradition began in May 1979 when Labour lost the last general election: the 'socialist Yorkshire' was not officially declared until February 1980.

The emergence of a new-style left in the Sheffield Council was a result of thei decline of the local trade union bureaucracy and the influx of middle class members their graves. into the constituency parties. Thatcherism swept the country and the Bennites swept The recession has been a body blow to the traditional manual workers' unions. In Sheffield, the AUEW has suffered a drastic loss of membership and income. Many of its lay officials have been victimised or projects, simply made redundant by massive shake- One result is a commensurate loss of influence in local Labour Party politics. Already, one of its favoured MPs - Fred Mulley - has been de-selected, and another - Pat Duffy - may yet come The AUEW and other manual unions have come under pressure from the rising public service and white collar unions (NUPE, NALGO, ASTMS) as well as from a new breed of constituency Between 1979 and 1981 Labour Party membership grew from 358 to 950 in Sheffield. But, as a tour around the city's indicates annual general meetings reveals, this increase indicates the drift of the middle class radicals into the party, not a turn by Labour to the working class.

example, in Handsworth, a solidly

AGM

the January attracted 20 people, average age 50.

of working class However, across the city in Heeley and the Labour Party has more more petitand is much Both areas are close to the city centre and have attracted a recent influx of young professional people traditions of community workers, -mostly on the state payroll.

Many of these are Guardian readers, CND and feminists who strongly radicalism identify with Labour's policies of state intervention to preserve public services and soften the impact of the recession.

Heeley's CLP branch has 105 members - 37 turned up to the January meeting.

Sharrow got 30 along to its AGM.

Sheffield's new left Labour Party is scarcely the more active than the old party of the right.

politics. The decline of Benn's star over the past year reflects a degree of demoralisation among the rank and file radicals as another At general election defeat looms ahead.

Heeley, officer after officer reported that sub-committees and canvass sessions had The failed to attract any new members.

campaign committee reported that leaflets on NHS cuts had not been handed out: its secretary grumbled that there was little or support from members, so Meanwhile in Sharrow, members were hotly debating whether the chair should rotate around a 'authorpool of members to discourage Against Quango rule Two examples illustrate the decline of One is the rise of the Caborn family, the other the role of the Council's latest quango, the employwingers George Caborn, who diedin 1982, was a life-long member of the Communist Party A living link with the days of Murphy and he became works convenor at company. In this steel position he won the high respect of management for his collaboration in organof the efficient exploitation On his retirement, the Council honoured him with the title of freeman of the city; when he died, management paid for hired cars to @ake Firth Brown workers to his funeral. He was active on many committees of trade union bureaucrats, and a patron of the Anglo-Bulgarian Friendship Society. George Caborn is dead, but his politics live on - embodied in his son Richard.

Moving with the times, Richard chose to pursue his career in the Labour Party. He is currently Euro-MP for Sheffield, and has recently succeeded in being selected as prospective MP for the rock-solid city seat currently held by Fred. Mulley. At a recent meeting on steel redundancies he launched into a chauvinist tirade against foreign imports and a fervent defence of British capitalists that must have had the proletarian internationalists who founded his father's party 60 years ago turning in The employment committee is the fighting Labour Party's alternative to redundancies and mass unemployment.

Set up under the chairmanship of prospective Heeley MP, Bill Michie, the committee promotes illusions about saving jobs through Council-assisted investment "planning' at the local level and workers' cooperatives. So far it has saved very few, if any, jobs. But it has provided employment on the council payroll for 40 full-time apologists for the Labour fight unemployment. Party's failure to Many will soon be campaigning for the return of a Labour government - no doubt with time off in lieu.

The employment committee employs former trade union officials and middle class activists. It is the most extreme example in Sheffield of a general trend: the transformation of the left of the official labour movement into one big quango. It desperate attempt of the the labour bureaucracy to hold together a base of support with one of the few resources left at its disposal - Council cash.

Sectarians The Labour Party in Sheffield has shifted its social base from the heavy-metal trade the public towards union bureaucrats, their middle class service unions and members in the constituencies.

But one Labour Party thing has changed little: politics. In this sense, Blunkett, Michie and Caborn are in line with the post-war Sheffield Labourism. As Michie told a Morning Telegraph reporter when he was accused of being a left-winger, I'm a mixed economy man myself. The Sheffield left means the of presenting a more militant style of class collaboration than presented in the recent past. Hence their strident calls for import controls and their urgent calls for the defence of Sheffield's bosses against their competitors at home and abroad. This is content of the left's 'community The Labour Party in Sheffield has had - except in elecno working class base toral terms - for more than half a century.

And it has had no working class politics Today the Labour Party for even longer. reveals its commitment to the labour bureaucracy and to the state that supports it in response to every challenge from the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Labour bureaucrats on the Council and the Trades Council have devoted considerable energies to blocking support from local Labour Party and trade union branches for RCP, Irish Freedom Movement and Workers initiatives. But the Racism support is growing all the same.

Class politics are in a sorry state in Sheffield today. The city that produced physical force Chartist Samuel Holberry now has to live with the ignominy of having turned out Labour's aspiring leader Roy Hattersley. Unlike many local leftwe are not sentimental about Sheffield's traditions. We only have to look at their inheritors to see that to reclass build the tradition of working politics, its usurpers must first be oustedfrom their control over the labour movement.

the next step, March 1983 17

LICENCE TO KILL

Racism workers in offensive. POLICE BRUTALITY is nothing new to blacks in Miami. occurred over the past few years which the calculated nature of state indicate In January repression. physically attacked a black man, leading.

to outbursts of rock-throwing and car- In February of the same year, a burning. black teacher and his son were beaten up and their home wrecked by the cops. The official excuse for this provocation was that the cops "thought" that the man was a cocaine dealer. taken as a result of this incident.

1979 saw the murder of a 22 year-old black man by an off-duty white cop who was acting as a warehouse security guard.

The cop daimed that the attempting to rob a warehouse. The man's family that he had stopped for a moment to urinate against a wall.

again, no action was taken against the cop involved. In Miami, if you are black, to may become a capital offence!

December 1979 came the And then in McDuffie, Arthur murder of insurance company executive.

was beaten to death by several white and Latin cops following a traffic violation.

The who examined coroner stated that the injuries received were the worst head injuries that he had ever seen.

One of the cops involved in this incident, Marrero, had been Alex volved in the January 1979 incident.

all-white jury in Tampa, May 1980, an Florida, acquitted the killers of any wrongdoing. Miami explodes This outrageous judgement, which came as a surprise to many white liberals but not to black workers, led to massive disturbances in Liberty City and Coconut Grove, two ghetto areas just north and respectively of Overtown.

south Miami blacks' first target was the police headquarters at the Dade County Metropolitan Justice Building.

was successfully, captured 18 the next step, March 1983

PT FREE DEM

The December 1982 riots in the Overtown district of Miami following the police murder of a black youth show once again the extent to which non-white America are suffering a dual capitalist On the one hand, their conditions of Several incidents have cops. mobilisation the 1979 police lante groups. of heavy state repression.

No official action was October an immediate response. and those of 1980. was Police had little Once outburst was different. black McDuffie clergy). In blacks saw the body member. previously in- In (who called in the the Miami police spontaneous be could cops. he in the The This building though the outright point of terror against them. reports. blacks were subsequently ejected by the Days of rioting followed in which many blacks were killed, and which saw of the paramilitary National Guard and of armed white vigi- The riots lasted for several days and then subsided under the weight This history sets the scene for the most recent outbreaks. Nevell Johnson Jr. was shot on 28 December and died the next day.

Miami's blacks - who had learned from the McDuffie case not to wait while the wheels of justice go nowhere - launched Yet there were important differences between these riots First, the area and the nuthers involved were much smaller.

difficulty in simply cordoning off the area and the National Guard was not called in. But secondly, the manner in which the state dealt with the From the beginning, the role of peacemaker fell upon Miami's black city manager, Howard Gary, and so-called 'community leaders' (mostly well-publicised meetings, Gary promising these community leaders to withdraw cops from the ghetto, to ensure that all police twoman patrol teams had at least one black He pressed for the recruitment of more blacks into the police force. In the 1980 riots, the most prominent roles were played by florida's state governor National Guard) and chief, Kenneth Harms (who lived up to his name).

In the interim period the authorities learned that against white cops anger reduced by the ploy community policing' by blacks and black By accepting the right of the police to chetto at all, the community leaders' accepted that the blame for police atrocities should fall upon the victims of police atrocity themselves.

That all the talk was just talk was proved by the cops' *Operation Clean Sweep' which took place on the last day of December. Squads of existence are being ruthlessly ground down to the the other, poverty. bourgeoisie increasingly sanctions the use of state Our American correspondent swept through the Overtown area cops arresting more than 400 people who they claimed were drinking in public, fighting, the streets". or loitering on workers left on the streets there was little response to 'Operation Clean Sweep'. And in contrast to the meetings with city manager Gary, the media paid very little attention to the operation.

The Latin connection One of the most striking aspects of the Miami events was the extent to which the black community leaders joined in the of non-whites condemnation origin. Miami is a racially heterogencous city. It is estimated that blacks and Latins together make up per percent of the metropolitan population. and in the May 1980 riots, the state very succesfully played off these racial groups against one another. For weeks prior to the 1980 fighting, boatloads of refugees, expelled from Castro's Cuba, were arriving in Miami. Just prior to the explosion, the US government cynically and belatedly these discovered that "common criminals thrown out of Cuba's gaols - and put a stop to the exodus. Yet in 1980 and again last December, black leaders pointed to these refugee Cubans and to other Latins as the cause of the trouble. Black community leaders claimed workers of Hispanic origin were taking away federal resources from blacks that were due to them as a result of their decades long struggles in the Civil Rights Movement. cops committing atrocities were Latin was seized upon and all Latins were labelled The Latins are the ones who are killers. killing the blacks," argued Jonathan Rolle, one of the community Aside from its obvious racism, leaders. behind this political myopia is a naive reformist belief in the so-called gains of the Civil Rights Movement. The fact is that any gains that were made have been stripped away in the past two years of recession and state terror.

Democratic, the barrels of police guns.

tensity. is similar. country. into degradation. rate for black teenagers.

for whites. the official expulsion at any time. Migra') the soon replaced by step of illegally With few numbers. red night scopes, listening devices). What can struggle imperialist state? of Latin their energies showy In Overtown, refugees were of workers. torted The fact that some of the against police Reverend the state itself. It seems to have escaped the notice of the Reverend Rolles of this world that the massive military repression of 1980 took place during the Carter presidency, whose administration was supposedly dedicate to civil rigits and to affirmative action The ruling class has no resources to give to blacks or Latins, and the only 'affirmative action' it can produce comes from Dole & Deportation Miami provides an important illustration of what is happening to non-whites in America today and will no doubt be the scene of future class struggles of great in- But on a national level the story Examples of officially sanctioned police murder can be produced ad nauseam. More than at any other time in the past few years the colour of your skin can be your death warrant in this And even if you survive the cops, economic conditions will force you The official and underestimated Labour Bureau unemployment The statistics for December tell the story.

unemployment rate for blacks is at least twice that for whites in all categories: 9.2% for adult white male workers against 19.0% for blacks; 8,0% for adult female white workers against 16.7% for blacks; and a staggering 50.1% unemployment The figures for non-whites of Latin origin are generally included in those They are marginally better than those for blacks, but only marginally. In fact, unemployment figures for Latin workers only tell half the story.

Many of them do not have legal status in US and so do not appear in the They are subject to statistics. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (referred to in contemptous terms in Spanish as La regularly launches raids on sweated labour shops, arresting hundreds of workers and deporting them. They are others. As economic conditions worsen in the Central American states, especially Mexico, more and more workers and peasants take the desperate crossing the border in search of any kind of work. The US Border Patrol is arresting and expelling these so-called illegal aliens" in record using available tech- Cycl nological means (helicopter patrols, infrasophisticated sound be done to defend the interests of non-white workers in America and to carry their defence over into the for communism in the largest The radical left has no coherent political strategy to present.

Its most active sections are expending organising sporadic and the Ku demonstrations against Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.

Yet the main racist offensive is coming from the official organs of the bourgeois state itself, not from its fascist reserves.

What is required immediately is a twofold anti-racist initiative. One side of this must be a campaign against all immigration controls. This inherently combines the interests of all workers, white, black and Latin, and hits directly at the class character of the bourgeois state, attacking assumed right to control the lives But there is no activity around this key issue on the radical left liberals" at present. In fact, American are starting to campaign for a tightening up of the immigration laws on the disthat it's better that grounds Sillegal aliens avoid suffering illegality in the US - by staying in their povertystricken and war-torn countries of origin!

The second necessary aspect of an effective anti-racist campaign must be the organisation of workers' defence groups It is only by murder. building militant defence in the ghettoes that blacks can defend themselves both against the cops and against the fascists.

Such organisation calls bourgeois legality clearly into question and lays the groundwork for revolutionary struggle against Ashley Neale

to deal left's response to defend the victims of their increasingly Phillips reports.

THE

POLICE

Bill brings together proposals made by Lord Scarman in his report on the 1981 riots and others contained in report by the Royal Commission Criminal Procedure, appointed by last Labour government. wers codified in the Bill include: • A dramatic extension of the police power to stop and search persons reasonably suspected' of carrying stolen goods, illegal drugs, firearms and items connected with terrorism' • The power to set up road blocks in any area, at any time • The power to search homes and workplaces at random in order to look for evidence • Wide powers to seize and record evidence including anything that might be connected with another offence, and to consult the records of doctors, lawyers, journalists and social workers • The detention of persons suspected of a 'serious' offence for up to six days The purpose of the Bill is to clarify and strengthen the powers to stop, search, detain and arrest suspects.

It legalises current police sanctions an even tougher Social contract Just as the Police Bill was reaching the committee stage in Parliament, politan Police Commissioner Newman was seeking Home Secretary William Whitelaw for his document on new strategy methods in London. ument argues for a new social contract the police hetween in the war against crime. The contained in the Police Bill provide the essential back-up for Newman's preferred policy of selective targeting of criminals based on sound information veillance'. Both the Police Bill and Newman's report represent a further refinement of the subtle blend of hard and soft policing that the British state has been introducing over the past few years. By increasing police powers and restructuring the Met they the police to go in hard against those they "criminals" and the young blacks are the first target in Left calls for 'community accountability' Police prepare for war The new Police Bill and Commander Kenneth Newman's plans for policing London show the British state building up its repressive powers with growing social conflict in recession-struck Britain.

Labour's pleas for community reveal a labour movement more concerned to help out the police than and Criminal Evidence answer TOTe the 1981 proposes to the man's The new poproach: strategy is vital." The specific document illustrate public 'criminals reorganisation 'crime-hit of the police Following the practice and watch approach. Metro- Kenneth are generally approval from off-duty throughout policing Newman's docof Detroit schemes. and the people' and targeting Dowers against major and operation in

SUT

discussion Consultative are designed to allow of the "muggers": The accountability' oppressive powers. Joan Newman's sights. At the same time they Scarman's for demands 'consultation'. The Police Bill make police-community consultative committees statutory, Newdocument summarised the ap- The crime prevention thrust will have two main facets: the rationalisation and redeployment of manpower and a ucilisation of consultative connittees as a vehicle for directing the overall strategy... Problems identified locally will be tackled systematically by coordinating the contributions of police, public and local agencies. The concept of a corporate proposals in Newman's the way in which "consultation' and liaison' will be harnessed to the drive against the and the muggers'. A radical of the Met will result in at least 650 extra constables patrolling areas. the This answers Labour-controlled Greater London Council's call for more bobbies on the beat.

American experience, Newman plans to set up neighbourhood committees", based on a street or a block of flats. Neighbourhood watch' has been the cornerstone of the Detroit police crime prevention prog. ramme in the black ghettos since 1976: it now involves 4200 block clubs'. These vigilante, squads run by Local police. police units London will be provided with blueprints based on adaptations Newman is already claiming results from his new method of crime analysis of suspected criminals. A pilot scheme based on the techniques of intelligence gathering previously used criminals, has been in Dulwich, south London, in a bid to combat, "mugging".

After Community Police the Group for Lambeth the scheme is now to be extended to Brixton and other areas in south London.

The essence of the scheme is to involve the public in the prevention and detection of crime. At the 18 January meeting consultative group, commander Marnoch pointed out that the police are only as good as the information they To improve the fight against receive. crime, therefore, requires contract between the Newman summed up the community. distilled from the ghettos of strategy the USA and his own experience as police chief in the ghettos of Belfast: The selective and accurate criminals, trying to isolate them from their host community. In West Belfast, if you got the right man, there was no difficulty. It was only if you picked the wrong one that there was trouble. (The Standard, 3 December 1982) The aim is to develop a good flow of information; cooperation from the public is vital: I would hope a block leader or street leader would come forward and be a useful contact for the police Protected birds' eggs The Police Bill and Newman's strategy document have provoked a furore.

Bill has been hailed as the harbinger of a 'police state' junta' by the Labour Party, the GLC and the National Council for Civil Liberties. These liberal reformists have all been busy producing 'alternative' documents, amendments to the Bill, and the usual plethora of pamphlets As The Times remarked, it is not very often that the NCCL and the Police Federation unite in condemning government proposals on an issue affecting the police. They are both agreed, however, that the Police Bill represents a serious infringement of civil liberties.

Police Federation, the Bill does nothing to remedy the glaring absence of civil rights for police officers and actually threatens the already vulnerable position of an officer who finds himself on the receiving end of a complaint' (Police December 1982). While for the NCCL the Bill has removed the citizen's 'centuries old right to privacy and sounded the death-knell for and freedom'. One feature of all the criticisms of the Bill is that they are directed against its 'draconian nature' and its 'excesses'.

The Labour Party and the NCCL condemn the Police Bill as 'unnecessary' and unjustified'. The libertarians fail to appreciate state is preparing to deal with major threats to the capitalist social order. The NCCL seems to be under the impression that the Bill is directed against litter droppers', CND demonstrators and those found harbouring the eggs of protected They that suggest campaigns are a more effective way of dealing with the problem of dirty streets power of arrest' (NCCL than a new Briefing to Members of Parliament on the Second Reading, 1982). The state's problem of containing social instability is thus reduced to a problem of dirty streets, Rather than responding to increased repression against blacks, unemployed and the working class by mobilising forces against the state, the NCCL pleads with the state to be nicer and puts forward helpful suggestions.

Crime prevention The most striking feature of all the criticisms of the common concern iciency of crime detection. The NCCL argues that the Bill will worsen police relations with the public and do nothing to improve police efficiency' (Watch out!

There's a Police Bill about, 1983). The GLC police committee is also worried about the crime rate: "Since effective policing depends almost entirely on public cooperation it is likely that increasing use of police coercion will result in lower and lower crime clear-up rates.

(GL.C police committee report, PC 78a, 7 December 1982) If the GLC is concerned to make the police more proficient in the detection and prosecution of crime, it is hard to see what they object to in the Bill. As Police Federation the cannot have it both ways: It is all very well for police critics to complain about the low clear-up rate for crime and talk of police inefficiency, but they cannot a two-way police and the strategy is to consensus on the u for repression, targeting police-community the little The a 'dictatorship' and a for and leaflets. politan Police, up rate in the worst record For the Government. "justice' British atives. 'excessive, based on democratic that the the Community Accountability) police accountability. Tanti-litter man and ingstone the difference: Bill, however, is their (The Times, 25 January) to improve the effrepression. argued, they helping to make able to the working class.

Racism then reject sensible measures aimed at improving the position.' (Police, December 1982) The aim of the ruling class law and order broad public ergate gent need to combat crime. This is vital to gain public support particularly of black youth in the inner city areas.

Statutory consultative bodies and the new police powers are two sides of the same coin, The GLC police committee, the Labour Party and the NCCL all accept the terms set for the debate by class. They recognise

LOO

that crime is a major problem which needs to be tackled: they are just a degree of squeamish about the repression needed to wipe it out. They therefore put forward an alternative strategy for dealing with it.

Taxation without representation GLC police committee chair and prospective Labour MP Paul Boateng wants to ensure that the police provide value money in the fight against crime. To do this he reckons they should be transformed into a public service, accountable to the community they serve: Londoners paid 1323 million in rates for their police force last year. The Metrowith the lowest crime clearcountry and sadly the of local relations communities, has hardly provided value for money.' (The Standard, 6 January 1983) In early January the GLC police committee produced a 20000 word report on policing in London which presents the GLC's policy on police accountability.

The document aims to provide the basis for legislation by a future Labour It outlines the structure for a new police authority in London: Labour would replace the Home Secretary as the capital's police authority with committees of elected represent- These proposals are founded on the belief that the creation of a Londonwide Police Authority would provide the framework for a new, improved relationship between the police and the public control". Behind the GLC stand a host of left-wing Labour councils and radical organisations; many (like the Institute of Race Relations and for Police Alliance supported by

GL.C

funding; all advocating the same thing - The GLC and the Labour Party are adamant that the type of accountability they are talking about is radically different from that proposed by Lord Scar- Kenneth Newman. Ken Livcondemned police statutory committees as cosmetic exercises which would not lead to more crimes being solved, nor tosafer streets.' (The Guardian, 25 January 1983). The editor of The Times, however, could not see much 'Sir Kenneth Newman and the GLC are not, however, all that far apart. They both rightly stress that effective policing depends on community support. No police force can do its job properly if it is mistrusted by its constituents.

The only difference between the state's version of accountability and the GLC's is in the people promoting it. Whatever the motivations, the consequences are equally reactionary: increased support for law and order, more police on the beat, more infiltration of local communities, and better operational efficiency. The danger of the GLC's call for accountability is that it appears to be radical and even anti-police. Boateng and Livingstone are adept at decrying police racism, police brutality and the

SPG.

Their demands touch a chord with the victims -and the potential victims - of state Newman and the British state have no worries however. While they are not in favour of bringing the Met under community control, they are quite happy to welcome the assistance of the GLC and the Labour Party in the increasingly coercive activities of the police more acceptthe next step, March 1983 19

Imperialism Botha with black and Angola; South plains why. UNTIL THE MID SEVENTIES, apartheid and black Africa coexisted relativepeacefully. The South African economy expanded and its domination over sub-equatorial Africa consolidated. Exports Africa increased by more than 130 per cent between 1966 and 1976; imports of black labour-power provided South Africa's gold and coal mines with more than 70 per cent While the masses benefited quirements. little, black African They confined their anti-apartheid sentiments to annual speeches to the people.

South African businessmen laughed the way to the bank in their Cadillacs driven by black chauffeurs.

the recession. Gold fever The world recession had a cataclysmic effect on South Africa. When the price gold 1975, of fell in the weakness of the South African economy exposed. Massive forced the government to borrow overseas and impose austerity home. As the domestic economy ground to a hall. South Africa's over its northern neighbours vital to its survival. The low productivity of South African industry even that of Britain capable of competing with Japan, the Europe. USA and italists had no alternative but to turn to black Africa to find markets. The low profitability of investment at home also pushed them towards exporting capital; the lion's share went to other countries in Africa.

South Africa's role in Africa. beyond trade extends vestment, covering the bulk of transport and communications area. South African trains and planes, oil and electricity installations, trained personnel operate as far afield Zaire. Before Zimbabwe independent, 97 percent of its exports were carried by and via South African ports. Zambia's copper, Malawi's tobacco, tea and sugar are all exported through South Africa.

In economic terms, the impact of the recession on black Africa has tended to 20 the next step, March 1983

SOUTH AFRICA'S DIRTY WARS

causing bother Ten years ago South Africa was steadily building up economic links Africa; political relations were stable if not cordial. In recent months South African troops have conducted raids into Lesotho African-backed guerrillas have blown up an oil pipeline in Mozambique and sabotaged railways in Zimbabwe. Today the South African state seems bent on creating economic chaos and political strife among its northern neighbours. Charles Longford exincrease its shortages economic African economies. to black 1970 and the world their labour re- 'seventies. ment aid' leaders prospered. harsh austerity the all black and the

DOTES

Then came have led to the apartheid north of the Limpopo. underlying black trading deficits Africa. domination became unemployment way below rendered it inmalnutrition and disease.

The immiseration South African caphostility new export apartheid state in Pretoria.

leaders to Southern against the and in. their OVer example, systems in the became the general election and became formation South African trains Botswana. fragile liberate their dependence Zaire ambia South subordination to Africa. Deteriorating terms of trade and of foreign currency resulted in a sharp contraction in all the black In Malawi for example, trade declined by a third between and Mozambique's 1979; was down 17 per cent. Copper-dependent Zambia was shaken by the collapse of copper market in the late Massive debts and "developforeign investment tied to conditions became throughout the As region. exports to the rest of the world declined, Africa's reliance on the markets railways of South and Africa increased. However, the recession had broader political consequences that growing tension between state and the regimes Immiseration The recession has further impoverished By the early 'eighties real income per head had fallen by at least ten per cent. Millions of subsistence farmers have been pushed to the verge of starvation; industrial workers face chronic and underemployment in the squalid shanty towns around every African city; children die like flies from of the masses of black Africa has provoked their growing to their own ruling elites and their Western backers, and to the symbol of imperialist supremacy in Africa - the Domestic pressure has obliged African stand out more forcefully South African stranglehold Zambia for countries. In relations with South Africa major issue in the recent campaign. The antiimperialist pressure of impoverished peasants and workers was a key factor in the 1980 of the Southern Africa Development Coordinating Committee. Zambia, Zimbabwe; Tanzania, Swaziland. Malawi, Angola, Mozambique and Lesotho linked up in federation. They pledged to from their 'economies on South Africa, to overcome the imposed economic fragmentation and to coordinate...efforts to wards regional and national economic development. Despite the combined GDP of these countries was only 32 per cent of South Africa's, the formation of this alliance is a real threat to Pretoria.

The anti-imperialist struggles that have won a measure of formal independence for Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe have already weakened South Africa's grip on the whole region.

Robert Mugabe took over in Zimbabwe in 1980, Mozambique's ramshackle railways and the notoriously inefficient port of Maputo have claimed 27 per cent of its exports. Zimbabwe itself, with its highly capitalised agriculture and fairly efficient industry, has the potential to become a serious challenger to South Africa. Its potential is particularly apparent in the markets of an increasingly anti-apartheid black Africa.

the SADCC is to realise this potential: its first secretary is a Zimbabwean ambassador. That's why premier P W Botha has launched a concerted offensive against Zimbabwe.

Controlled attack South Africa's strategy for destabilising black Africa is no haphazard series of random guerrilla raids. It is a calculated economic, political and military offensive designed to maintain hegemony over the region.

African armed forces" anti-imperialist fighters in Namibia on and Angola are familiar to readers the next step. in Zimbabwe, Africa's immediate well known. Pretoria's first sanction against Mugabe's regime was the withdrawal of the preferential trade resulted in the reduction of Zimbabwe's industrial exports to South Africa and the loss of vital revenues. Africans withdrew their railway locomotives at a crtical stage in the agricultural season. The result was a loss of Z$4.5 billion per week: only 56 of the 80 wagons which usually ship maize to Zaire every week could be mobilised - no prizes for guessing who made up the shortfall. The South African goverment next insisted on visa requirements for its citizens visiting Zimbabwe, thus hitting its emerging tourist trade hard.

In recent months raised the stakes. In January the South African-backed Mozambique Resistance Movement blew up Beira in Mozambique to Zimbabwe. This deprived the country of vital supplies of oil and petrol, Mugabe was forced to negotiate additional food supplies from Maputo, via South Africa.

Guerrillas have crossed the border in growing numbers from Northern Transvaal into Matabeleland in Zimbabwe. They have helped to foment the conflict between the Ndebele and Shona ethnic groupings which is currently verging on civil war in part of Zimbabwe.

The aim of South Africa's economic sanctions dirty destroy Zimbabwe. Botha simply wants to curb Mugabe's pretensions to challenging South African power and to force him to accept economic on South Africa's terms. So far Mugabe has refused to enter the ministerial level negotiations which Botha seeks.

But he has already moved away from a joint SADCC energy strategy by pushing ahead with an independent Zimbabwe power project. The result is a major breach with Zambia, which had hoped Zimbabwe would take some of its spare hydro-electric capacity. This is the sort of conflict within Botha is keen to promote.

Dirty tricks Elsewhere South Africa has pursued a similar strategy. In Mozambique, guerrillas recently blew up the Malawi- Beira rail link at the beginning of the planting The only season. route to the sea - via Nacala - was in a state of disrepair: South Africa refused the fact that ports in an ti-apartheid through Thus, since bique: through South Africa. The aim of per cent in South African three countries regional strategy, that is, South Africa's The South Lesotho ruthless attacks target of to split of Their nefarious exploits Mozambique and South satellites are less the sabotage treaty in 1981. This Lesotho's Then the South a direct SADCC conference close by. South Africa has African the pipeline from with Southern Mutare in for Zimbabwe and stark blood will flow. souther tricks is not to ism capitalist Africa. cooperation - which greater determination. the SADCC that ruthless enemy

MRM

of the past. struggle ation, alternative ions, and to help restore the tracks. It did however offer loans of $11 million to help Malawi air lift 15 000 tons of vital fertiliser from Mozambique. And it kindly set up a 'benevolent fund' to cope with the consequent food shortage. The end result of this calculated disruption of the railways was that Malawi's exports had to be re-routed via Zambia and Botswana, Zeerust in South Africa. In January Africa Business summed up the aim of the guerrilla strategy in Mozam- MRM attacks are designed to force these states to redirect their trade South African strategy in Swaziland Lesotho and Botswana is to combine its economic domination with its willingness to resort to direct military co ercion to undermine the fragility of the SADCC. These countries are included in a customs union with South Africa: customs receipts constitute a substantial proportion of government revenue - 60 Swaziland, 71 per cent in Lesotho and 37 per cent in Botswana.

South Africa has recently reneged on a revenue-sharing agreement with the in response to their participation in the SADCC. A government spokesman declared sternly that *the customs union should not be seen in isolation as a revenue-sharing arrangement, but as part of a comprehensive development strategy" in line with South African interests, not those of the SADCC.

in particular has been the South African man oeuvres and weaken the SADCC. The South African military has withdrawn backing from its earlier stooge chief Leabua Jonathan and now gives support Liberation so-called Lesotho Army. Like the MRM in Mozambique this guerrilla force is engaged in a limited campaign designed to ensure continuing subservience to Pretoria, Just to show who is really boss in Lesotho, South African troops staged attack on African National Congress refugees in the capital Maseru last December, only weeks before an was due to be held Socialism or barbarism The recession and increasing class confrontation have forced the South African ruling class to undermine the stability they have spent years trying to create.

By going to war in Southern Africa they have revealed the weakness of South General Magnus imperialism. Malan's offer of non-aggression pacts Africa while openly acknowledging South African backing Mozambique guerrillas in Angola, indicates Pretoria's options to its neighbours: cooperate on South Africa's terms or When it comes to foreign policy, Botha has the full support of the South African ruling class and the backing of world imperialism. The US government's closer cooperation has encouraged South African barbarism in the region. The Americans know how high the stakes are in Africa, for the crisis of South African imperialhas tovealed the vulnerability of social relations in Southern Pretoria's instability has raised the decisive question in Southern Africa way forward - socialism barbarism? Botha and the class he represents have shown their determination to pursue their class interests even if they have to soak Africa in blood to do it.

The black workers of Southern Africa have to pursue their interests with even The struggle for socialism in Southern Africa is on the agenda today. Black workers face great odds - not only are they up against a in South Africa but they also face their own ruling classes whose accommodation with imperialism has betrayed the anti-imperialist struggles By carrying forward the against South African dominthe masses will free themselves from the yoke of capitalist social relatcomplete Southern Africa's unfinished anti-imperialist struggle

Fighting for Britain Richard Croucher, Engineers at war 1939-1945, Merlin Press, 1982, pbk £4.60.

CROUCHER'S BOOK brings together a wealth of documentary material on disputes in the engineering industry between 1939 and 1945.

also provides detailed evidence of the increasing accommodation of the trade union movement to the war effort and the role of the Communist Party in using the shop steward's movement as a vehicle for harnessing workers behind the war drive.

CP on the move Croucher charts the growing influence of the Communist Party within the union. Initially, its power lay in the rank and file, but by the of officials outbreak of war the majority were party members or fellow travellers. The CP went out of its way to avoid a direct confrontation with the reactionary AEU national argues that executive committee. this was a crucial influence on the future devclopment of the shop steward movement: The CPs accommodation to the AUS official apparatus which became so apparent from 1937 onwards, derived from the more general policy of building a British popular front.' The CP's influence on trade union organisation in this period was crucial TGWU General Secretary Ernest Bevin became Minister of Labour in 1940. In his drive to win labour movement support for the war effort he relied heavily on the shop stewards.

From early 1941 industrial conflict spread across manufacturing industry. Apprentices in Scotland were in the vanguard of the action with demands which included a 100 pér cent wage Increase. They refused to allow their local officials to negotiate on their behalf.

Bevin intervened and ordered a Court of Inquiry which resulted in the introduction of a 'wage for age' scale. Dilemma solved Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 spurred the CP faction on the AEU's national committee into action. The CP insisted that the war against Germany should be prosecuted with the utmost vigour and argued for a radical change in factory organisation intensify production and to eliminate strikes. Industry had been in a dilemma: not wanting any incursion into management control but wanting to incorporate the trade unions. The CP helpfully resolved this by setting up Joint Production Committees.

The CP's task was not easy. It had to convince its own members, workers and even some omployers of the need for the committees.

Despite the CP, anti-war feeling grew as floor organisation and militancy.

did shop Combine committees were set up and there were increasing demands for closed shops.

Rank and file aversion to the CP and the decline in militancy towards the end of the war is presented by Croucher as an argument against the intrusion of politics into. trade union affairs. He fails to grasp the fact that it was the political bankruptcy of the CP which was responsible for demoralisation and working class defeat. Working class - defeated Croucher also fails to make explicit the integration of the shop stewards' movement and the CP into the official trade union structure, It was these wartime developments which institutionalised procedures for control over the rank and file and set the pattern for relations between labour and capital in the workplace in the post-war years. Alison Murray In the eye of the storm J E Peterson, Yemen, the search for a modern state, Croom Helm, 1982, pp 221.

PROFESSORS of government have never been noted for their understanding of politics.

Peterson is no exception. His history of the reviews Yemeni Arab Republic adduces a great deal of information but is unable to advance a coherent explanation of the course of Yemeni history and the social forces at work there.

Britain's legacy Britain used the Imamate of North Yemen from the late nineteenth century to safeguard its interests in the Arabian peninsula, first to undermine the Ottoman Empire, and then to contain Arab nationalism. The fifties and 'sixties saw the ending of Britain's role as in the Middle East. imperialism's patrolman In the wake of Suez, Britain was replaced by the US as the guarantor of the stability of While was the region. rearrangement the Imam Ahmad Hamid al-Din going on, was assassinated and the Yemeni Arab Rep- The weakness of the movement against the Imamate was that it was based on the aspirations of an almost non-existent local bourgcoisic which intended to replace feudal institutions with a structure that would allow a thriving Yemeni capitalism to develop. Since they had no social base for such a programme, the rebels appealed to Egypt's radical nationalist leader Nasser for assistance.

The fortunes of Yemen in the "sixties demonstrated the inability of these forces Unwilling to carry out such a programme.

to attack the power of the sheikhs, the tribal leaders and the feudal landowners, the republicans never even attempted land reform. The Yemeni masses had to endure seven years of civil was - in order to prepare the way for the underwriting of the Yemeni Arab Republic weapons and Saudi money. by American that: The establishment Peterson remarke of the conciliatory regime in 1970 was, in some ways, a reconstruction of the Imamate without the essential figure of the Imam: it basically satisfied no-one'. It satisfied no-one except the American, British, French German, Italian, Norwegian, Swiss, Swedish and other investors and exporters before whom Northern Yemen was now prostrated. The price of compromise The failure of ne Nasserites to establish an indigenous capitalism has been followed by the invasion of the Yemeni market by Western consumer goods. The tiny bourgeoisie is dominated by middlemen handling foreign goods. The only local industries are small biscuit manufacturers and ice-cream makers. stagnated. The majority of Agriculture has the population are still engaged in subsistence farming. Attempts to Stimulate rural development through the Local Development Associations have merely enhanced the power of the sheikhs. Yemen is now dependent on imports for basic foodstuffs. The attempts by the stimulate capitalist development have left in their wake a litter of projects unfinished because money ran out, a poorly paid, corrupt and a growing bureaucracy, foreign debt. Yemen now needs subsidies of up to $200 million a year from the Saudis, just to balance its budget. On top of this, Yemen has obtained a working class almost by default. As the most populous area in the region, it has been the main source of labour for the peninsular oilfields, Up to a third of Yemen's workforce is employed abroad at any one time. The money they send back pays for the country's imports, but when they return they drift into the main cities of Sana and Taizz looking for jobs which don't exist.

For Peterson, Yemen's distorted development, and its political consequences, lie 'almost buried under the dominant imprint of wars, and ambitious but colliding assassinations politicians..: Peterson ends up explaining Yemeni backwardness by Yemeni backwardinstability of Yemen by the and the nORS instability of Yemen. In reality, Yemen's instability stems from its position as a backward capitalist country dominated by imperialism.

Peterson also fails to set Yemen in the wider context of the Middle East. Yemen is in a vital strategic position guarding the approach to the Red Sea and the Gulf, For him, the search for a modern Yemen will go on in the same way as before. But as France, Britain and fight for their America prepare interests in the Indian Ocean, Yemen will not be allowed to be neutral. The Yemeni workers, who have led the strikes in the oilfields of Saudi Arabia in 1980, 1981, and 1982, must prove Peterson wrong.

John Jenkins No battle of Algiers Writing on the wall, directed by Armand Gatti, 110 minutes, Prix du Jeune Cinema 1982.

FILMING for Writing on the wall began in Bobby Sands died. Black Derry on the day flag marches and British troops in the war zone that constitutes the Six Counties of Ireland, show the potential to make a vivid and powerful film about the Irish War. Instead the French anarchist director Gatti, has made a film that is lauded by film critics because it panders to the liberal prejudice that Ireland is too complex to understand. Seamus Docherty sums it up when he says towards the end of the film: For 800 years you have failed to understand us... You will never know what has sustained us. What sustains the Irish liberation struggle is the refusal by Britain to allow Irish people to run their own country.

But the film dodges this and tries to say that there is instead something mythical and peculiar about Irish culture, something beyond which British people are incapable reason. of ever grasping. Blaming 'the system' Seamus Docherty's task in the film, as in real life, is an impossibility. He runs a youth centre for the unemployed of Derry which tries to reconcile Catholics and Protestants within the context of the Six County state. The three propositions put forward to explain the relationship of Protestants to the British Army all fail to grasp the real position. One Protestant youth says that when a soldier dies it is as if a part of him dies. Another says that despite being a Protestant, he too hates the Army: and the third blames the whole system In reality, when Protestants assert their British connection it is their relative advantages over Catholics that they are defending. Blaming the whole system obscures the central point that it is not simply backward capitalist relations that oppress the Irish, but that the North is ruled directly from Westminster as a colony. Noel, the deaf and dumb communic ations teacher (get it?) makes one of the few valid points in the film. He strikes out the equation sign between Irish and British workers.

They have the same enemy in the form of the British state, but British workers experience class oppression within the oldest imperialist country in the world, Irish workers experience class oppression as part of an oppressed nation within the oldest colony in the world.

What war? The film goes out of its way to make the war itself seem meaningless. Catholic womar whose one son has just been killed asks hopelessly, What can I do to make all this stop?"

Her son was blown up whilst transporting explosives in the company of a Protestant friend from the Workshop.

The explosion is caused by a jolt to their truck once they have escaped Derry and are driving in picturesque surroundings. Like the discussion theme in the Workshop - the death of a British soldier who was trying to rescue a Catholic family from a fire - the war is pushed into the background. The deaths arising from the hungerstrike and protests in the streets - these are ignored. To the fore is the pointlessness of two young men, Catholic and Protestant, being blown up on a sunny day in the countryside.

The Catholic mother with her other son in the H-Block, knows very well what will make the withdrawal of war stop the defcat and British imperialism. Writing on the wall is a trashy film whick culture as a sut intellectualises about stitute for confronting the reality of imperialist oppression. If you want to see a real antiimperialist film go to see the Battle of Algiers (again). The Irish War still awaits its Pontecorvo.

David Douglas Mistakes' in Lebanon Michael Jansen, The battle of Beirut: why Israel invaded Lebanon, Zed Press, 1982, London, pp142. The Kahan commission, set up by the Israeli government to inquire into the massacre of around 1000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut in Septembei, has concluded that it was all a mistake. Defence Minister Ariel Sharon was singled out to carry the can and he has been forced to resign his Because powerful forces in the Isracli office. state, including Prime Minister Menachem Begin, consider the Beirut events were not all that big a mistake, Sharon remains in the Cabinet.

Errors of Judgement The left in Israel, organised during the war in the 'Peace Now' movement, thought the entire invasion of Beirut was a mistake, Michael Jansen has written an apology for this liberal imperialist standpoint. In fact, the real mistake is made by the crities of Begin and Sharon, who believe that the Zionist state can exist without savage repression of the Palestinians.

Jansen argues that the Palestine Liberation Organisation was not a serious military threat to northern Galilee; therefore an Israeli invasion of southem Lebanon was unwarranted and unnecessary. He insists that the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut does not remove the Palestinian threat to Istael: the PLO is already regrouping and re-arming in Jordan and elsewhere. Finally he observes that the goal of a stable and sympathetic Lebanon is as far away as ever.

In reality the Israeli government had little choice but to smash the PLO in Lebanon, not only because of the threat to northern Israel, but crucially because of its need to curb the Palestinian threat on the West Bank of the Jordan. The strategy of cultivating a moderate Palestinian leadership had failed, repression had been stepped up and serious rioting had erupted in response. Once they had crossed the border, the Israeli forces had no alternative but to go all the way and drive out the PLO from Beirut. In these circumstances events like Sabra and Chatila were inevitable. The PLO may reorganise, but its present fragmented and enfeebled condition shows that the Zionist state has landed a heavy blow on the Palestinian struggle.

Barbarism unlimited On one point Jansen is right: Iscael cannot stabilise Lebanon. In the long term its intervention will only widen the sphere of conflict in the Middle East, This is why the USA and imperialist forces have moved into other Lebanon, in an attempt to maintain a degree of order in the region. Meanwhile the Zionists are excavating for Biblical remnants in southern Lebanon, building up commercial links and refusing to withdraw, their troops; state-subsidised housing settlements are being pushed ahead on the West Bank. Istaeli militarism and expansionism have little to do with Zionist fundamentalism or the psychopathology of Begin or Sharon (as Jansen and other radicals would have us believe). They simply mark the survival instinct of a state backed to the hilt by Western imperialism and threatened by the anti-imperialist struggle of the Palestinian Sharon may have made the mistake of people. letting his Phalangist allies go a bit too far in front of the world's television cameras in Beirut.

But all the signs are of much more of the same sort of barbarism ahead, as the imperialist powers fight to keep their grip on the Middle East. Inez Landa the next step, March 1983 21

Irish prisoners In recent months the Irish Freedom Movement and the next step have made a vital contribution to the Irish cause by exposing the plight of our prisoners of war in Britain and campaigning on their behalf. Indeed any solidarity movement which failed to agitate and organise around the POW issue could not be taken seriously.

The record of Marx and Engels in defending the Fenian prisoners in the 1860s stands as an example to British socialists today.

I write to inform your readers of the harass ment of Shane Paul O'Doherty, a fellow Derryincarcerated in HM Prison man, currently Gartree. This is his account in a recent letter about the hardships inflicted on his family as a result of his imprisonment in Britain: I was to have two visits from my mother and brother on Wednesday, January 3 but owing to stormy weather during the previous two days.

the ferries berween Northern Ireland and England were cancelled. So on Thursday 6th, my mother flew alone to Manchester (cost 697 retum) because my brother could not afford the fare, and went by taxi (E3) to a bed and breakfast (E20) for the night. On Friday, 7th, she took a train to Market Harborough (E16 return) and got a taxi from Harborough to the prison (f4 return). Because she arrived late we were only granted a 45 minute visit. She spent Friday night in a bed and breakfast (£7) and on Saturday 8th, was told she could not visit me because the limited number of Special Supervised Category "A" visiting places were booked our' So she spent Saturday night in the hed and breakfast (E7, meals an extra £5) and visited me on Sunday afternoon, 9th (E4 taxi) and spent Sunday night in the bed and breakfast (E7, meals an extra £5) On Monday, 10th, she was free to travel home again, having spent over 1175 to see me for 2 hours, 45 minutes for the first time in over 6 And my mother is a widow and penmonths. sioner. Because I am a single man, I have an easier time than married men, whose visits are far more expensive and complicated and infrequent. Shane concludes with a demand for repatriation to Ireland. T honestly believe that the British Government in holding irish prisoners hostage in English prisons, is maltreating them and their relatives, and has every intention of continuing

TO TO SO.

For my pains in opposing this transfer injustice, I have been 'on punishment' in solitary for over 18 months with no sign of alleviation due. I hope your readers will remember these words the next time they see details of prison pickets, out in etc in the next step and will turn solidarity with our courageous POWS.

Fionn O'Foyle Derry WAR victory I'm writing to thank Workers Against Racism for the tremendous effort you put into the campaign in my defence. You will all be pleased to hear that I won my case in the Crown Court on a unanimous verdict from the jury. That will surelv force the racists in Rirmincham to take note. They can no longer get away with attacks on black people with the full protection of the police. We will fight back and we will win.

It is important to point out that without the Defence Campaign which WAR initiated there would have been no victory.

All the pickets, demonstrations, trade union motions and leaflets, helped to make certain that the police and racists could not cover up their attempt to label me a criminal and to congratulate those who accall ten me. Unlike the local Labour Party - which believes in justice through the courts - I prefer to rely on organised anti-racists to gain justice.

The advice I would give to victims of racist or police harassment is, get lawyers and barristers to defend you by all means, but don't rely on Bring opponents of racism onto the them. streets in their hundrede and thousande and fight back. 1 thank my friends in WAR for showing this to be the most effective type of defence.

Yours in struggle, Pino Khan. 22 the next step, March 1983

WHAT

YOU

TO SUPPORT TERRY DUFFY AND THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:

1. NOTHING WHICH WOULD FURTHER REDUCE YOUR COMPANY'S COMPETITIVENESS.

2. CHALLENGE YOUR COMPANY THAT THEIR PRODUCT PRICES ARE RIGHT

FACTORY EFFORTS DESERVE

AND SUITABLE.

(ALL OF THE ABOVEIS YOUR BUSINESS FOR YOUR JOBIS AT STAKE)

How the AUEW leadership fights' unemployment, Terry Duffy's 1980 leaflet Engineering elections the AUEW, has In recent years my union, become dominated by a solid right-wing clique.

It was this leadership - under John Boyd and Terry Duffy - which, with the help of the local Broad Left officials, sold out the struggle at Laurence Scott, as they have sold out many orner sinkes. However, in the forthcoming elections for national organiser, militants have a chance to vote for a real alternative to the class collaborationist policies of both the hard right and the soft Broad Left. Alex Lawrence, a delegate to the East Kent district committee and a member of the national committee, is standing on a platfrom sympathetic to the politics of the next step.

In the elections for general secretary last year he got almost 10 000 votes on a similar platform.

His election address challenges the allegiance of the AUEW to the Labour Party and its alternative strategy: During the last Labour administration unemployment doubled, public spending was slashed, cash limits introduced and workers suffered the greatest reduction in living standards in the post-war period.

It was a Lgbour Government that brought in the Prevention of Terrorism Act which is aimed at stifling any support for the struggle to free Ireland from the yoke of British imperialism.

The Tory Government's Nationality Act was, in all its essentials, drafted by the last Labour Goverment. It is aimed at reducing the number making life of black people coming here, intolerable for those living here and deporting as possible. ..We must fight these as many To do so attacks and defend fellow workers.

we must break with the Labour Party and develop an anti-capitalist strategy.

Again the Labour Party and the TUC have produced a social compact.

Like the last one it is the price that workers will have to pay in re.

the repeal of industrial legislation tum for brought in by the Tories.

The main plank of the AES is massive new investment that they hope will restore higher levels of profitability for British capitalism. The AES is about making British capital stronger than the capital of its rivals by increasing productivity. flexibility and a national economic assessment that puts profit before wages.

Workers I am sure will not be fooled by promises to reduce unemployment to under The AES is an one. million in five years.

electoral gimmick which does nothing Il cannot therefore adchallenge capitalism. vance the interests of workers.

Alex deserves the support of all engineers who want to get rid of the present reactionary leadership. Dave Hallsworth

LETTERS

UNEMPLOYMENT

CAN

DO 3. CHALLENGE YOUR COMPANY THAT THEIR SALES EFFORTS ARE AS GOOD AS YOUR 4. CHALLENGE YOUR COMPANY THAT THEIR INVESTMENT POLICIES ARE AMBITIOUS Was Lenin a sexist? Your coverage on Women and Peace in the last issue of the next step was excellent, not least in the way that it challenged the assumption that has been adopted by the Greenham Common that there is something inherently women pacifist about women, which stems simply from their womanliness. Women have fought bravely in many struggles around the world. Working class women have taken up arms and stood beside their fellow republicans fighting against British imperialism in the Six Counties Ireland. Recognising this, as 1 know you do, it seemed somewhat incongruous that you quote Lenin, not to illustrate that women have a part to play fighting in revolutionary struggles, but educating their sons to fight. Surely this passive Tole of women, leaving the action to the men, is one that a Revolutionary Communist Party must reject entirely. Women must be involved in every aspect of revolutionary politics, and presumably in the future they will also be given guns to learn the military art properly in this country as they have been in Namibia, Ireland To deny this is to relegate women and Palestine. to the side lines of the struggle, something which 1 understood the RCP was trying to correct. Suzanne Young Keele Kate Marshall writes: Lenin's advice that women should urge their sons to take up arms against the ruling class simply reflected the reality of his times - that military activity was an exclusively male pre- We agree that today women must be inserve. volved in every aspect of revolutionary struggle Indeed that is - including military activity.

Implicit in the article in the February issue of the next step. It is interesting that many who immediately reacted against the Lenin quote and dismissed him as sexist have been very tolerant of the profoundly sexist statements of supporters of the Greenham Common protest which celebrate the passive, submissive and conservative characteristics of women oppressed by capitalist society. Women and health On January 27 Wandsworth District Health Authority voted to close the South London Hospital for Women and Children.

The DHA Working Party, which includes five Labour Party members, made no objections; they reckon the closure will save £12 million in five years and will provide the money necessary to commence constructiongf phase 2 of St George's Hospital.

Tooting. Having attended several meetings organised by the Labour Party-led campaign to save the hospital, I am angry at the arguments being put forward. The most popular one is that the hospital is a unique facility for women and infinitely more valuable than St George's.

The second argument which follows from this is that the women's hospital should not be sacrificed to St George's. Some supporters at the DHA meeting even argued that conditions at St George's were too luxurious and enough money had been spent on it! And GLC Women's Committee chair, Valerie Wise, did no one a favour when she offered 2.5 million of GLC money to keep the hospital open.

We should tell Valerie Wise that we are not in the business of bailing out the DHSS. To win the fight to keep the hospital open requires more than handouts from the GLC it requires different politics. We should fight this closure not just because it affects women - but because we fight all cuts in our health service and all redundancies. The either-or' arguments of the LP accept the economic constraints imposed by the government and are divisive.

We want the Women's Hospital and St George's and more! One hundred hospitals have closed since 1979: we must shout loud and clear: a free health service is our right - and we won't keep it without a fight!

Sheila Phillips

In defence of autonomy 1 do not agree with the RCP's position on women as argued in Real Freedom, The book's over-simplistic, blanket criticism of the women's movement is unacceptable. Firstly it implies that the women's movement is not in contact with working class women. This is simply not the case. Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Centres, in particular, are in contact with working class women. In fact the vast majority of women dealt with by these branches of the women's movement are working class.

It is working class women who are mostly in need of these services, especially women with children who desperately need women's refuges. These organisations do deal with symptoms of the system, however this is not their only function the women's movement consciousness raising movement and Marxist feminists in the movement argue that through contact with feminist ideology women can develop strong feminist/socialist consciousness. Marxist feminists would argue also that it is impossible to be a true socialist if you are not a feminist. On the point of dealing with symptoms, the RCP too carries out this function.

Even if you argue that you deal only with those immediate and pressing problems, eg deportation cases, this does not detract from the fact that you are dealing with the symptoms.

The women's moverent is also criticised as being a middle class movement. However the same meaningless criticism can be directed at any left organisation's hierarchy, including your own. It is impossible and grossly unfair to lump the women's movement together and regard it as a political whole. Within the women's movement there is a whole spectrum of politics.

Therefore it is important for Marxist feminists within the movement to argue for class politics.

Why an autonomous movement? As Real Freedom adequately explains women's issues have never been dealt with by the left.

Women were forced to organise autonomously - working class women - in a fight for equal pay and equal rights. Women began to organise, yet again, by themselves. The history of women's suffrage has shown the power of women organising. Women have been constantly sold out by the left and if the consciousness of women is not raised then there is no hope for the future. If you cannot convince women you will never convince men. Under these circumstances any gesture to alleviate sexual discrimination will remain tokenism. Therefore it is necessary for women to organise to change this. Also the specific nature of women's oppression under capitalism puts women at a great Women have been treated as disadvantage, insignificant secondary citizens for too long.

Working class women suffer more than middle class women in this respect. For too long their jobs have been regarded as menial, from childbearing and rearing to working for 'pin money'.

Working class women do not have a professional position to maintain and can rarely survive economically on their own. The ideology necessary to maintain this status for women is strong. Capitalism uses the ideology of male supremacy as an excuse to maintain the economic subordination of women so necessary for capitalism to survive. It is necessary therefore that women have a place where they can realise their position in society - a place from male ideology, away from male away male. For example not class pressure many women for years have listened to how the class their problems are not important, struggle comes first. The women's movement can be a place where women realise that their struggle is the class struggle. From participation in women's groups and women's politics many women find a strength and courage in themselves. They can realise that they are just as important and that their issues must be regarded as just as important. It can give them the courage to go out to the left and say - wait a minute, what about us?.

Karen Kate Marshall writes: Karen recommends Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Centres on the grounds that they *deal their with working class women and raise consciousness. She believes our criticisms to centre on the fact that they deal with symptoms not causes, and cites the activities of Workers Against Racism as a comparable case.

LETTERS

The two are not comparable. Although both provide immediate relief to oppressed people under attack they exist for different purposes.

The central aim of women's refuges is to provide aid, help, sympathy and comfort. Working class women who are forced to avail themselves of these services are treated to a feminist world view. That means hearing lectures on how all men are potential rapists and that its safer to walk home with a woman' on the one hand, and isolation from men in cramped hostels on the other. The reason why the women's movement has taken up the problem of male violence is because, from a feminist standpoint, this is the single most important issue that all women in all societies face.

WAR does help the victims of racial harassment, whether this comes from fascists or the state, but our aim is to emphasise that racism is not just a problem for those on the recieving end, but a political issue for the entire working class. Our campaigns therefore are working class": our political direction is determined by our priority of forging a class conscious vanguard in the workers' movement. Consequently the bulk of our work is directed at workers - in the workplace, in union branches and on the housing estates. It is irrelevant that in some cases the victims of attacks or some members of WAR are middle class. The women's movement claims to be in contact with the working class because it 'deals with working class women. It has no perspective of getting the working class to fight for decent housing for all, against the economic slavery of women or their inferior social position - all of which create the problems those agencies are responding to. Karen claims that the autonomy of the women's movement is the result of the failure of the labour and socialist movements to fight for the vote for women, equal pay and women's rights. True, The record of the official British labour movement on issues like women, Ireland, racism, the colonies, imperialist wars, etc is almost uninterrupted compliance with the bourgeoisie. Autonomous organisation is a response to oppression and to the failure of the left. But the left didn't only have a hand in creating an women's movement by its inautonomous action. It has constantly endorsed and consolidated it as an excuse for its continuing neglect of issues of women's rights, 'Yes, it says to women, 'go ahead, do your own thing - we wouldn't dream of fighting your battles for you. Karen says that the women's struggle is part of the class struggle. While this is true ideally, the WLM in collusion with the left has gone out of its way to separate the two.

women's movement emphasises While the that it stands for all women whatever their class, the left has busied itself with applauding most loudly those sections of the working class which exclude women (miners, engineers, shipbuilders ete). The left's adulation of heavy metal militancy avoids the political task of transforming the class struggle to include a fight for democratic rights.

However Karen's main recommendation for an autonomous women's movement is that it "male ideology" and "pressure'.

is away from What is male ideology? And how does it differ female ideology? Obviously it is imfrom ideology is genderpossible to prove any "male ideology' specific. If means by she politics which will hold back the struggle for women's liberation, then there is no shortage of it in the women's movement. Pacifists, "small is beautiful capitalists, reformists and Stalinists vie with astrologers, goddess worshippers and Catholics for control. Perhaps a rejection of "male ideolog" means no more than a recognition that it's nice to get away from chauvinist men for an hour or two a week. Fair enough - but isolation does nothing to challenge chauvinist ideas in the labour movement. While Karen endorses autonomy she baulks at its logical consequence - separatism. Why?

Because if the women's movement accepted it "it would lose all meaning'. In fact the only meaning, the women's movement can have is that it stands for "women alone': separatism and autonomy are only slightly different interpretations of the same viewpoint. If anything separatism is the more logical and Autonomy' is the comrigorous position. promise for those still hung up on penetration and radical women who think the Labour Party has got something going for it. Karen wants to straddle the feminist and "Marxist' positions and provide a justification for her own dual tortuous logic is loyalty. Fortunately this - it is possible to fight for wounnecessary men's liberation and working class power, but the RCP is the only organisation which can do this. We are so confident that our politics do defend women, and can fight for all women's interests, that we have no hesitation in simply calling ourselves "Marxists' - without qualification. Forever and forever I looked forward to reading Kate Marshall's book Real Freedom, hoping that it would begin to answer some of the many questions that make people hesitate from committing themselves to The main problem for revolutionary politics. many is that as yet no party has been able to produce a convincing enough argument to show that with the removal of capitalism comes the end of women's oppression. This doubt is based on the belief that this oppression pre-dates capitalism, and that the conditions responsible for this original inequality will not necessarily disappear in a communist society.

I do not believe in the biological inequality of the sexes, and cannot accept that the early origins of women's inferior role can be so simplistically reduced to their child beating role as Kate Marshall seems to suggest. If so how will the removal of capitalism change this view which was so prevalent before it came into being? Paula Harrison Kate Marshall replies: There are vulgar bourgeois economists who see tools as 'capital, conch-shells as stone-age "money" and all forms of work as labour'. There are historians who see racism in ancient Rome, and imperialism in Napoleon's forays throughout Europe. And there are feminists who sce women's oppression embodied in mediaeval Catholicisn (expressed by Henry the Eighth's appalling treatment of his many wives), or in the subjection of African women togenitalmutilation over centuries. A common failure to detect the specific forms of social relations is the rule in the unscientific theories of the bourgeoisie. On the one hand, this means interpreting all past phenomena in terms of today's categories and values. On the other, it implies a human nature" which is constant, inherent in mankind and not Many people will reject subject to change. communism because they believe the desires to be rich and powerful, a 'real individual", violent, etc, are like original sin: something we have to accept and learn to live with.

Historical materialism provides us with a scientific understanding of past and present and explains how the future will develop from what exists now. It is always historically specific: the mode of production determines the social relations between people. "A negro is a negro," wrote Marx, 'only under certain conditions is he a slave, A jenny is a machine for spinning cotton; only under certain conditions is it capital.

Because the rising capitalist class was unable to function without the freedom to exploit equality free labour market, it's before the law ance struggle was a revolutionary one, in that i capital obsolete smashed barriers But, in mobilising the masses accumulation. behind its demands, the rising bourgeoisie also created working class aspirations for real freedom and equality, Once the bourgeoisie had defeated the landed aristocracy it became possible for people to conceive of freedom and equality for women for the first time. It was only with the victory of capitalism that the technical preconditions for women's equality came into Capitalism developed the forces of existence, production in a systematic fashion.

Paula Harrison rejects our discussion of the natural and technical barriers to women's emancipation because she doesn't "believe in the biological inequality of the sexes. Not do we - today. Child bearing is no more "oppressive' than working outdoors in winter slighty inconvenient, but technically feasible.

A few weeks off work, breast-feeding facilities in factories and nurseries could solve one problem; the other can be solved by better protection from the elements, and longer breaks. But prior to capitalism, having children could severely in- With no control over their capacitate women. fertility, women underwent repeated cycles of pregnancy and lactation, Every few hours they were forced to breast-feed the baby, before Nestles began producing artificial milk. And they had to look after the children who were too young to work, which restricted their ability to move about freely. Our description of the effects of women's childbearing facility in precapitalist societies does not mean that we think that women's oppression is caused by their biology. Precisely the opposite. Capital, which creates the technical possibilities, cannot resolve them, because the profit motive gets in the way.

Free and relatively safe contraception can be obtained in Britain today, but nurseries to enable mothers to return to work cannot. This is what we mean by capital itself being the barrier to the liberation of women.

Capital, not nature, oppresses women because its drive for profit excludes the meeting of our needs.

For the RCP it follows that the precondition for the emancipation of women is the abolition of capitalist social relations. Paula Harrison is not convinced that communism will necessarily abolish the oppression of women. But why not?

There is no natural barrier to emancipation, either in terms of human nature('sexism'), or in terms of biology. Thus a society organised to meet people's needs rather than to advance the accumulation of capital has no need to oppress any section of the working class. Furthermore it would be counter productive. A communist society is only justified in so far as it is able to raise the productive forces. Not only will this result in providing the resources to make life women - it will require the full easter Tor participation of women in production if it is to succeed. The liberation of women can only be achieved in a communist society. The guarantee that the working class will abolish every barrier to emancipation is the attitude it takes today to the fight for women's rights.

REAL FREEDOM

Kate Marshall relates women's capitalism oppression today to Real Freedom is a bourgeois frontal challenge to in crisis. reaction, reformism and traditional feminism. It points the way to a working class strategy for women's liberation. €1.95 plus postage (50p)

BUY IT!

• Send cheques to Junius Publications, BCM JP Ltd London WC IN 3XX

What is the origin of the drive towards war?

CND

blames the the military-industrial complex, the generals and the arms industry, irresponsibility of politicians like Thatcher and Reagan. capitalist system. The world recession has class of the forced the capitalist countries into a bitter struggle for survival. They are all re-arming with conventional and nuclear their conflicts, resolve as always done in the past, on the battlefields of war. 2 Will they disarm themselves?

CND

appeals to British capitalists to renounce nuclear weapons. ruling class in history has ever voluntarily up its means of defending itself given and enforcing its own interests on its The British capitalists rivals, commit suicide as a class.

rather destroy the world than relinquish their power. 3 How can they be disarmed?

The disarming of the requires the overthrow of the capitalist That's why the cause of peace system. demands the mobilisation of the working class against the bosses and their system.

4 Have we got time? Many CND leaders believe that the class struggle should be after the capitalists agree to disarm. No wonder they are pessimistic about their halt the nuclear war. Abandoning the class struggle now means the working class committing suicide, Our only hope is their system before it destroys us.

5 Why not 'Jobs not bombs"?

Because bombs are not the problem: the problem is the capitalist system, Cruise missiles have not put four million on the dole in Britain; Trident is not to blame for police brutality against blacks; Polaris never chained sink. The cause of poverty and oppression is capitalism, not its weapons.

way to defend jobs is to fight the system and its backers, not their hardware.

6 Can arms spending be transferred to hospitals and schools?

Yes, but not by a capitalist government in the midst of a world recession.

British state in common - has no choice but to cut competitors back on welfare spending and increase its expenditure on weapons. The only way to stop this colossal waste of the resources of society is to overthrow the capitalist state and establish a system that can organise and plan in a responsible manner.

Is

CND

imperialism? No. Most members "believe forms of military defence'. is the polite British word for one of the world's most powerful military machines and the usual apology for its deployment abroad. Britain's 'defence" has required two major wars this century and scores of minor expeditions to "defend" British interests by crushing struggles. CND broadly approves ventional British militarism, while criticising its nuclear weapons.

8 Is CND against Britain's war in Ireland? No. While many CND supporters are blind irrationality of and the We blame the major weapons to they have But no will not They would capitalist class postponed until drive towards to destroy this century through the kitchen The only brutalities. 9 in the South Atlantic? impose its will on The with its supporters anti-imperialists strations arrested by the police. opposed to British

CND?

in some "Defence' votes by win popular aspirations of war. party Government first acquisition anti-imperialist and seventies built up COn- Today's these Greece weapons,

ABOUT CND

opposed to Britain's most prolonged war - a war which has raged most of CND's history its leaders have no policy on the Irish War.

Their only statements are condemnations the national liberation struggle. CND is a tacit supporter of the British military occupation of Ireland and all its attendant Did CND oppose Britain's war Not really. CND called for Britain to Argentina through diplomatic rather than military means. It refused to support Argentina's legitimate claim to the Malvinas or to con- *we are not demn British imperialism: of Argentina or enemies of Britain'. CND stewards tried to expel from anti-war demonand identified activists to be 10 Why does Labour support Because the Labour Party believes it can cynically appealing LO for peace. This is cynical because Labour is a consistent The Labour post-war authorised Britain's weapons of nuclear and subsequent governments in the sixties the stockpiles. Michael Foot disarmers, and Tony Benn, played a prominent part in Labour has solidly supported British military terror from forties to and Malaya in the Ireland and the Malvinas in the 'eighties.

Today the Labour Party is against nuclear but remains committed to

20 QUESTIONS

AND ANSWERS

the (nuclear) NATO alliance.

11 What about the Greenham Common? The women of Greenham Common have braved the elements, police brutality and imprisonment in their cruise Their missiles peace and their determination to realise them must be applauded. association peace ol women as passive with family life reinforce stereotypes and detract from the goals of both disarmament liberation. 12 Why does CND back Greenham Common? CND has seized on non-violent direct action", particularly of the middle class women's movement.

As one of the Greenham protest organisers said: this way there's no risk of violence by anybody; we can contain the whole thing much better', For CND, Greenham Common be both can respectable. This is especially important in an election year when CND's leaders are very concerned not to let protests get out of hand and embarrass Labour's prospects further. 13 Why does Labour Greenham? The Labour Party approves of the Greenham protests because not the nuclear missiles, weapons which it is in favour of building up; and because they are against American missiles - not against British militarism. 14 ents. winning priests, as it is. ions for peace class. unemployment Labour Party.

CND?

that Labour spread women of not the British has always Labour Party in protest against for aspirations But their want? with images of beings, preoccupied right-wing today women's and world free from ation and destroys, corner of the earth, the day? stage, campaign under the control demands erent direction. popular and in the future, weapons people have back system they focus on conventional And we place today. Why does the Liberal-SDP Alliance approve of Greenham?

For the samegreasons as the Labour Party.

15 What is the danger of CND?

Before both world wars massive peace movements existed in Britain. As war drew near they turned into movements of support for Britain against its oppon- Why? Because, like CND, they campaigned against the militarism of Britain's rivals more than they opposed British militarism. When it came to the crunch their loyalty to Britain exceeded their commitment to peace, CND is already moving along a similar course.

16 Why is CND so C of E? CND aims to influence the establishment in favour of a different, non-nuclear, 'defence' policy. Hence its concern with and the approval of vicars generals, academics and opinion polls. CND is not attempting to mobilise workers to disarm the capitalist class; its major appeal is to middle class people who want to preserve their way of life Should workers support CND?

No. CND cannot realise workers aspiratonly prepare them for war: Workers have no interest in choosing alternative weapons systems for the ruling backing Britain against the USA, or Germany or Japan, or preserving the British way of life - militarism, mass and misery. Many leftwingers are trying to build trade union support for CND. All they are doing is mobilising working class people for the of the CND leadership and the Why are the Tories against The Tories oppose CND because they fear appeal may successfully to the popular desire for peace and wideanti-American chauvinism, undermine their electoral support. But this is a problem for the Tory Party, state The ruling class able been to rely on une the past and it is confident it could in the future.

What sort of peace do you Do you want the 'peace' of the world - minus a few US cruise missiles?

Or do you want to see the peace of a the capitalist exploitthat kills and oppression murders and maims in every every minute of The latter is not the next or even the ultimate aim of the nuclear weapons. It against a start in a completely diff- 20 How to fight for peace?

We cannot be sure what might happen if nuclear war breaks out, But we do know that since nuclear were developed millions of died from starvation and disease, and through non-nuclear military holocausts as a direct result of the capitalist system. And we know that the same today condemns millions to poverty, oppression and military coercion.

This is where our fight against militarism begins. We fight against the wars going on now, especially the war. in Treland.

direct our fight against the central enemy - the British state. This, not the campaign against cruise missiles, is where the real fight for peace is taking