Back to Labour Values index
Back to Dock Strike index
Back to article index
THE STORY SO FAR ...
Last month's article 'The Act in the Dock' drew four conclusions for the working class after analysing recent events in the economic struggle (the rail strike and the Chobham Farm incident). The events of July show even more clearly the need for Communists to explain these to the working class. The conclusions are seen more clearly from the July events because both the working class and the bourgeoisie declared their positions more openly and concisely. Instead of inferring these from the events, the spokesmen of each class have stated them and likewise the extent of the force of each class behind their positions is more evident, because each class has used that force to back up their position. This article will briefly restate those four conclusions and then go on to examine the events of July.
(taken from The Communist No 52, The Act in the Dock, pp 28-30):
"Firstly, no Communist can support the attempts of one section of the working class to win out against another through using working class solidarity against it. If the ruling class had not intervened to regulate the market, it is very possible that we would have seen workers struggling against one another at Chobham Farm ... It would be equally incorrect for Communists to condemn the dockers for their action. Given their political consciousness, they could not have been expected to act otherwise. However, it is apparent that Communists must explain the reason why such struggles must take place until the working class unites to overthrow the labour market and also exactly what effect such struggles have on the working class - that they force them to organise and fight against each other instead of against the ruling class ... Only by developing the political struggle, can this be overcome. Explaining this is the first step towards enabling the working class to move against it.
"Secondly ... The 'left' groups take that part of the working class consciousness 'trade union leaders always sell you out' and reply 'Yes, what you want is to force the leaders to do what you want and institute workers control.' This statement is meaningless as that is already the exact relation between rank and file and trade union leadership. It is necessary to explain this to the working class so that instead of it being 'a sell out' when the trade union leader does not deliver all the goods or overthrow the Tory Government, it is understood that he is doing all that is in fact being asked of him. To alter this situation, it will be necessary for the working class to be able to make political demands of their trade union leaders ... The other side of the 'sell-out' element is the defense and loyalty to the same leaders (i.e. the reason why the ruling class will avoid making martyrs with the Industrial Relations Act). Both these elements reflect the relation but neither explain it or enable the working class to use that relation to force political change or indeed a changed attitude towards the economic struggle.
"Thirdly, the result of the defensive aspects of the economic struggle is that technical change which increases the productivity of labour and develops the productive forces is very effectively resisted. The working, class can have no interest in opposing such development. The purpose of such defensive resistance is to maintain the favourable conditions and wage levels of the working class. Its effect is reactionary and of no service to the working class. This must also be explained to the working class so that the economic struggle can be fought to maintain and extend conditions and wages under new technical conditions. In this way the working class can extend its hold over the organisation of production and its consciousness of functioning over production.
"Fourthly ... Because, they (the working class) see their grievances always redressed by the state, they can see no reason to alter their part in the bargaining process. It must be understood that how much the state can offer the working class is based on (l) the working class' demands and their organisation in putting the demands (2) how far the ruling class is prepared to give (3) that the state is merely the instrument for working out this bargaining process, that it is the ruling class itself that must be opposed and struggled against - not a Tory or Labour Government. The position and needs of the ruling class must be seen not merely as their negotiating position in Parliament, but arising out of their need to keep control of the means of production. Communists must show the working class that an event like the rail dispute means more than just 'a victory against the Government', They must show that the victory was the inevitable result of the balance of class forces at present ..."