THE Christmas Issue of Socialiet Challenge reflected the strength, but also serious paper. Although any attempt to cover issues not normally Worthwhile, the undoubtedly worthwhile, Kmas issue failed to do this in Any socialist strike a clear balance belween CRANE STICINN Interest and value to experienced militants, and those WAlen are oruse to lose no have only recently been drawn Into socialist politics.
In fact, the interriews with David Hockney and the Fowles were unintelligible, even to those who have been active for a number of years On top of this, it was difficult of a serious nature and those with a salirical content.
must phasise and highlight the serlous problems the SECHS. cultural coverage. Numerous have been published COLIC OT TO BAOCT KATION page, but have not led to any signilicant change. The editorlal board hes to make a clear decision. Should the Unda Review' page be accessible to the vast majority of the paper's current and potential reader ship, or only well-educated minority? John Arlicles such as the review reviews and reviews, are need to Articles such as the ine last zo yours or Brish painting are panthey are at present win the Are the comrades trying newspaper?
MIKE TUCKER, EDDIE ASHSouthampton talist Challange Group.
SOCIALIST CHALLENGE 12 January 1978 page 0 The events of recent months in the FBU strike, at Grunwicks, and in the NUM symbolise the turns which have taken place in the class strugele in Britain over the last few years. In 1968-74 a series of mass working class struggles rocked British politics. In the summer of 1975 however the Labour government introduced an incomes policy which was followed by a huge drop in mass trade union struggles. The working class suffered important setbacks on the economic, social and political fields. Wilson was replaced by Callaghan, who proved to be an even tougher and more ruthless ruling class politician. The new upturn of struggle in 1977 suffered some important defeats.
happening. A strategie debate opened up on the left wing of the workers movement in Britain. Socialist Challenge believes that an understanding of what has taken place is a vital task confronting the left today. In the first of two articles on the analyses of the left, JOHN ROSS disputes the explanations given by Eurocommunists and lefts within the Labour Party for the defeats of the last period, and the perspectives which they offer.
IN ORDER to understand the impect of the events of 1975-77 on all classes and layers of society in Britain it is necessary to go back four years in time. When, in the winter of 1973-74 the cht down the Heath government they ictory since the Second World War. It came in the wake of six years of mass working class struggles, of a kind not seen in this country since the early Twenties.
As a result, not merely the left, but virtually every major force in society expected this victory to be followed, perhaps after an initial loll, by an escalation of the class struggle which would lead to further working class victories They noticed not just that Heath had been defeated by an important trade union struggle, but also that the Tory Party in February 1974 lost a major proportion of its working class votes — votes which are vital for any governmental party in a society as heavily proletarianised as Britain.
The Tory proportion of the vote was the lowest this century. Furthermore the implications of the rise of Scottish nationalism for the unity of the British state, especially given the fact that the Scottish National Party had replaced the Tories as the most dynamic party of the bourgeoisie in Scotland, were well understood by the ruling class.
An important section of the ruling class felt that major political and constitutional changes were necessary to control the situation. The Tory Party manifesto for the October 1974 clection raised the question of a peacetime coalition government for the first time since 1931. There was talk of proportional representation.
Devolution became an issue of some importance and ruling class journalists prepared their class for major changes in British politics.
All this from one angle might have seemed a somewhat exaggerated, if not hysterical response, to the overall situation. After all the return of a Labour government was hardly a new experience for the captains of industry. They knew that in the Labour leaders they bad loyal and lested defenders of the system. The real reason for their consternation was not the Labour government. It was their fear that the relationship between the Labour government and the mass working class movement had shifted decisively in favour of the latter and that These changes in the political situation saw attempts to explain what was Labour would not be ableto effectively police the In 1968-70 a Labour administration had been forced to withdraw In Place of Strife which embodied its anti-trade union proposals. It had been unable to prevent the beginning of the biggest strike wave for 45 years. In 1970-74 the trade union bureaucracy was unable to prevent the major struggles which led to the defcat of the Industrial Relations Act and ultimately brought down the Heath government. The political positions of the most important sections of the bourgeoisie following winter 1973-74 were based on the evaluation that the Labour bureaucrucy would not be able prevent the masses launching further magior ciasr strugeles of the type of 1968-74 In that situation some different, more powerful political formula would have to be found. A National Government would concentrate all political forces against the working class. Proportional representation would hopefully prevent Labour ever gaining a majority again. It meant, at the very least, that the Tories had to be supported against Labour not merely in February 1974, when it appeared possible they could win, but also in October 1974 when it was obvious that they would lose.
THE LEFT This appreciation of the relations between the masses and the Labour government was shared not merely by the ruling class, but by most of the left wing of the workers movement. It was almost universally anticipated that the working class would again move into struggle and gain victories. The only major difference was on what form this new advance would take.
The Labour left and Communist Party saw moves forward being inaugurated by the reformist left. The revolutionaries expected a collision with the Labour government that would sap the illusions in the Labour bureaucracy held by soctions of the working class.
In the event neitber the perspoctives of the ruling class nor of any section of the left were realised. After allowing some limited economic concessions in its first months in office the Labour government moved, in the summer of 1975, to Introduce incomes policy and austerity mensures. This in itself didn't surprise anyone as the ruling class had urged it and the left predicted it.
Whor was dromatic and unexpected however was that the hage attack on the working chess launched by the labour bureaucracy mer nod mess resistance, even after an intrial Taft, but on the contrary led to a major downtum in mass sorwegles. The 124½ per cent cut in real wages in two years — the most rapid declive in living standards for a century; the doubling of unemployment; the savage cuts in the welfare Mate; a series of attacks on trade union and democratic rights were met, not with a mass fightback, but by a fall in the number of days lost in strikes in 1976 to the lowest level for ten years.
Furthermore there were other disturbing symptoms. The growth of electoral support for fascists and racists, the fil in mobilisations on major international questions such as southern Africa and Ireland to levels far lower than even two or three years previously, not to mention 1968: the stagnation of the revolutionary left and the decline of left reformism.
BALDWIN WITH NORTH SEA OIL For the ruling class of course it was relatively easy to respond to this new situation, If, contrary to expectations, the Labour bureaucracy could control the masses then support should be shifted to the Wilson and Callaghan governments. Whereas in 1974 there was talk of how to change the electoral system to prevent Labour ever getting a majority again, by 1977 Peter Walker anticipated the fulsome new year tributes to Callaghan which filled the bourgeois media by characterising bim as Baldwin with North Sea Oil'.
By the end of 1977 some important working class struggles hadtaken place - - the toolmakers' strike, Grunwicks, the FBU, But, after initial flutters, the bourgeoisie retained its confidenoe Eat me bureaucracy ma te sugaon under control and made it clear that they thought Callaghan and the Labour government were the best people to handle the situation This unexpected boost for the ruling class was bowever. a matter of grave concero for the lett. How had the ruling class been able to achieve this unexpected victory? hadn't the expectations of the left following the victory over Heath been realised? What could he done in the even nominal socialists. They found a pale reflection even on the front page of Tribune of 6 THE CENTRISTS The reformist and centrist left has not been slow in coming forward with Its explanations of the situation. Setbacks in the class struggle always produce a host of intellectual apologists who rush forward lo provide sophisticate rationalisations for accommodating capitalism. The specific form this has assumed in the last period is an attempt by a whole series of reformist and centrist forces — in particular the offshoots of Eurocommunism in Britain (Purdy Prior, Roberts et al, as well as the official CP Seadersto and various toross in the Labou Party left such as Ken Coates, Cleoff Hodgson, Peter Jenkins, etc. — to ascribe the setbacks in the class struggle not lo the role of the reformists but to allegedly overwhelmingly unfavourable factors of capitalist society.
On the theoretical level the common thrust of this current has been the attempt to demonstrate the supposedly invincible might of bourgeois institutions in general, and bourgeois democracy in particular. Whether it is bense soviet power is less democratic than parliaments (Hodgson), because democracy is classless (the various Labour lefts), or simply because the ruling class is overwhelmingly powerful and won't tolerate anything else (Poulantzas), the essential goal of the Eurocommunists and centrists is to escablish that is is impossible to successfully challenge the most basic ruling class political institutions The left has therefore to give up any idea of the sovereignty of workers" institucions, dual power, or any strategy leading to this goal. The best that can be done is to work to transform ruling class instinations through their own contradictions → although of course a few workers' councils and recognise this power and move sharply to tight to link up with other forces who may partial contradiction with it. This Tor Purdy Prior and the most consistent E communists — the important thing to do i give up the ridiculous economist against incomes policy, and instead make a with progressive sections of capitalism whe the working class accepts wage cuts in retari TetOrms For Ken Coates and the Institute of Wor Control, what should be done ls to avoid wages struggle, which 'splits" the lat movement, and instend form a bloc with po such as TUC chairperson David Bassett other supporters of incomes policy to try persuade them to make a campaign ag unemployment. This will 'unite "divide the working class. For the CP leader in the student field especially, what is needed avoid any alliance with the revolutionary abd instead form a bloc with "progre Tories'.
in each case, however, the analysis and an is the same. The present situation is a stri manifestation of the power of ruling institutions. What needs to be done, therefo to scale down activity and get closer to sections of the bureaucracy — or even to par the bourgeoisie itself. This entire 'explana of the present period is, in reality, both the cally incoherent and at variance with the elementary facts of tbe situation.
We will not deal bere with the underl falsity of the theoretical argument concernin nature and power of ruling class instituti This has heen done elsewhere recently in Soc Challenge (see for example, 'A "Third" Rot Socialism?" by Dave Bailey in 8 December is What we will demonstrate is that this argun neither fits nor explains the recent developa in British politics Let us first look at the thesis which s from the allegedly invincible strength of nu class institutions, capable of derailing defeating any revolutionary strugele by working class based on forming alterna organs of power. The centrists are wron believe that these institutions can never historically challenged.
Ar present however they are indeed c sufficient to derail any move to vio revolution or insurrection. Doubtless if the fighters, presumably propelled by to "insurrectionist left", had attempted to transf their strike into civil war aimed at harit socialism, then bourgeois hegernony would prevailed. The capitalist class would bave wi However thia argument is quite bopeless. attempt to explain the current situation Britain. Victory in struggles such as Growi the FBU strike would be an importam forward in the working class They