Socialist Action (LSA) Vol. 3, No. 3, April 1980
A different group, and a different paper from the IMG’s Socialist Action of 1983–88. The League for Socialist Action were supporters of the US Socialist Workers Party’s tendency in the Fourth International who split from the IMG in 1976 and rejoined it in 1982.
The scan: Socialist Action v3 no3 Apr 1980.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive)
Uncorrected machine reading of the whole issue. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from the scan and has not been corrected or cut into articles. Each page gives the headlines first, then the columns in order, so one article runs on into the next. Expect misread words. Use it to find things; quote from the scan.
Page 1 scan of this page
Socialist
DEFEND OUR UNIONS!
STEEL PICKETS VICTIMISED
holding down wages, creating mass unemployment (as at British Steel) - this is what the Tory government has in store for the 1980s. Whole areas of the country are to be reduced to the industrial wastelands of the thirties.
ALL OUT
MAY 14th!
On May 14th, the TUC has called a national day of action against the Tories' attempts to curb trade union rights.
Clearly the action reflects the growing mood in trade union ranks as wider and wider layers are pushed into head-on battles with the Tories to defend jobs and living standards.
The steelworkers' strike, the mass anti-cuts actions around the country, the mini general-strike in South Wales last February - all show a growing refusal to allow the Tories to close down services and turn whole areas of the country into industrial deserts. While the TUC action is merely a one-day protest, all trade union and Labour Party members should begin mobilising for it now. May 14th has to be turned into a day of mass defiance of Tory policies to lay the basis for an ongoing campaign.
BSC Steelworkers pi
Action
A Socialist Paper - Published in the Interests of Working People
power and strength of the trade
unions seen, most recently, in the
100,000 strong steelworkers' strike.
Despite threats, police brutality,
witch-hunts in the press, that strike
has halted the Tory offensive dead
in its tracks.
EMPLOYMENT BILL
Now, in order to muzzle the unions, the Tories have republished their
Employment Bill. Key among its proposals are attempts to * smash the right to picket by making union members open to court action;
undermine the closed shop by making it dependent on a two-thirds ballot of members;
erode the right to a job by halving the statutory period of redundancy notices.
More recently, under pressure from the Tory 'hawks', Thatcher has gone one step further and has threatened withdrawing benefit from strikers' families.
The aim of these undemocratic moves is crystal-clear. Only by curbing the right of unions to defend their members can the Tories hope to shift the burden of the present crisis onto the back of working people.
GAMBLE Whether or not the Tories get away with their undemocratic moves is, of course, dependent on the resistance offered by the Labour leaders. Already there has been a lot of fighting talk and, under growing pressure, Len Murray has called for a one-day stoppage against Tory Hadfields private company John Sturrock (Report)
cont on page 12
P.B. (Birmingham)
Over the past month, the Tories have tried to whip up a campaign of hatred against the steel pickets. As thousands of workers have descended on private plants - such as Hadfields or Sheerness - the press has had a heyday denouncing 'union bully boys'.
limited to British steel plants, the The British steel bosses - backed up by Keith Joseph - would simply have tried to grind down the steelworkers in a prolonged stoppage.
But the extension of the strike
SHOULD BE
Workers on March 9th demonstration show their attitude to the Tory government
win.
POLICE
No doubt, if the strike had been
outcry would have been more muted.
hand to lay in".
Corrie Stopped Cuts Debate CARL labour Party Steel Afghanistan
THE IRON LADY
• CAST IN STEEL.
THEN SHE'LL KNOW
HOW WORKERS FEEL
to private firms - and the support drummed up from other unions such as the miners - has driven the government and its press lackeys into a frenzy. After all, they might
Not only has a major press barrage been directed against the pickets but the police have also been told to pull no punches. As Winston Campbell, ISTC picket from Rotherham, put it: "The government has given the police a free In fact, the Tory government
10 has given the police the green light to use "intimidation' and other criminal charges freely against pickets. The results have not been pleasant. Dozens have been arrested, carted off to the courts and fined.
Many more have been subjected to police thuggery. At Sheerness, for example, women pickets - wives of striking steelworkers- were punched and kicked, and at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, the assaults were so serious that the ISTC issued a formal complaint against the police for injuries inflicted on 4 pickets.
cont on page 6
Page 2 scan of this page
Labour & the fight for women's
page 2 by LIZ EASTON (NUS)
weeks.
Although Corrie tried to obtain extra time on March 15th to get parts of the Bill through, the threat of women being faced - once again - with having children they do not want or returning to the horrors
NO
ID THE
ANTI-ABERTION
FOR A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE
•= backstreets seems to nave
• -emoved.
- iS ACTION
- = reason for this victory is not
...as the media puts it, the 'fil-
• ¡tering' tactics in Parliament
•eading pro-abortion MPs such _: Renee Short or Jo Richardson.
No doubt their strong opposition : the Bill in the House - and their aruggle to win vacillating Labour MPs to grasp its full dangers - did -lay a vital role in blocking this attempt to turn back the clock on zomens' rights.
When Corrie's anti-abortion Bill came before Parliament, Thatcher slapped a one-line whip on all Tory MPs to vote for it. Even though some rebelled, it is clear that the Tory government saw the Bill as in line with their general strategy. By attempting to reduce abortions by up to 80,000 a year, the Bill was aimed at whipping up a climate to ease women out of the workforce and back into the home • where they "belong' - bearing id rearing children.
A: a time of rapidly rising unem= ament, Corrie's Bill thus had a natural attraction for the Tory e: ters. Removing women from the workforce could be justified *theoric about defending the meet the "unborn child'.
DEFENSIVE This stamp to push women ::: ire workiorce has not been imited however, to the happily
Mass action stops
Corrie Bill
The Corrie Bill has been consigned to the dustbin - where it belongs. Despite attempts by the Tory MP to cobble together a last-minute compromise, it is now clear that the Bill has been stopped in its tracks and with it, the proposal to curb the time limit on abortions from 28 to 24
But the real reason for the deteat of the Bill was the mass opposition that developed throughout the country in the preceding months and which reached a climax in the 70,000 strong TUC demonstrat-
CORRIE
BILL
FIGHT
Tion in November, last year. This was the first time the organised labour movement had actually turned its paper pledges into real support for womens' rights.
It was the mass action pioneered by CAC* - both nationally and locally - that drove home to many MPs, particularly on the Labour side, the wide hostility to Corrie's attempt to erode the 1967 Abortion Act.
The extent of this hostility could be seen during the second & third
late lamented Corrie Bill. It is a key aspect of all Thatcher's policies. As the cut-backs in government expenditure bite, whose jobs will be first on the line?
Those in which women tend to predominate - teachers, cleaners, social workers, librarians and cooks. Cutting back on womens' jobs will not only lower family income - something the Thatcher government was supposedly so concerned about - but will hit single-parent families particularly hard.
As services are cut back by the local councils, who will increasingly be affected? Women. Day nurseries, on which many working mothers depend, will be the first to be axed as will hospital facilities which will make abortions harder to obtain EMPLOYMENT BILL
Latest in line of these attacks
MIS
their resolve to fight the Bill.
DANGERS
ne openly stated Inat ne would
uce another anti-abortion Bill.
organised in SPUC and LIFE.
get anti-abortion Bills through
mobilised against them
in the period ahead.
FIGHT-BACKR
In this sense, the struggle for
defeated, continued action is
ed and to prevent any further ones male allous.
of introducing positive laws in favour of a woman's right to choose.
pledged itself at conference to
ion on request - to include this
it when returned to power.
CONSCIENCE? on women's rights is the Tory
instatement to their jobs.
also those who do not find it Bill), but they're also trying to make sure that, when they do
their job back!
FAMILY
readings of the Bill, when mass protests continued to be held. On Feb 5th, over 20,000 pro-abortionists - including a contingent from the NUS - mobilised outside Westminster, mass meetings took place and a petition of 200,000 names handed in to anti - Corrie
The fact that CAC continued to mobilise support right up to the last minute was vital in keeping pressure on MPs and 'stiffening'
While Corrie seems to have lost the battle he hasn't given up the war. Speaking on Feb 5th, when it looked as if his Bill was doomed
continue to oppose the 1967 Act and, if the chance arose, introd-
Corrie's stand reflects the determination of the anti-abortion lobby
Three times they have tried to
Parliament - the White, Benyon and, most recently, Corrie Bills -and they have only been stopped in their tracks by the mass action
Their offensive has already led to certain parts of the Act being eroded and we can be sure that new initiatives will be mounted
EXTEND
abortion rights is not over. While Corrie's Bill seems to have been
•stil nege co remove rre curos that nave are been incode
bands.
In the coming period, NAC will be discussing out what should be the way forward - in the light of Corrie's set-back - and the chance
A central thrust of this campaign should clearly be to commit the Labour Party - which has already
TO SUlA NAU support a woman's right to abort-
parties in their Manifesto and implement
This will not happen without a Employment Bill. Among its anti union provisions are some which attempt to strip away the right that presently exists for women to obtain maternity leave and re-
The Bill not only exempts firms with five or tewer employees but
"reasonably practicable" to make such a provision, and those where the woman is offered an alternative and "unreasonably refuses"
Not only have the Tories tried to force women to have children they don't want under Corrie's
have them, they can't legally get
As they attempt to push women back into the home through cutbacks in nurseries, redundancies
CUTS & NURSERIES
Carol Rees (Southwark CLP)
As the Tory axe descends on
local authorities, guess what are
the first facilities to disappear?
Nurseries. Already, councils
from Nottingham to Wandsworth
have decided that. in their
'priority list', the already in.
adequate nurseries for the under
5s will have to go.
What this means, of course,
does not take much imagination.
Thousands of working mothers
around the country will be
forced either to leave their
children with un-qualified staff
- if they have the money - or
walk out of their jobs to look
after them.
EQUALITY
The closure of the limited
nursery provisions councils
provide will be a severe set-back
for women's rights. Thatcher
might claim that women already
have equality with men -
before the law - but, in practice,
this is just not true.
In this society, it is not
men who have to face the
burden of rearing children.
That responsibility falls entirely
on the shoulders of women who
are thereby faced, when a child
is born, with the agonising
conflict of whether to pursue
her career or stav home and
look after the child.
The onlv wav women can
escape from this dilemma is by
the state taking over the res
ponsibilities of child-care, thus
releasing women to participate
freely in society alongside men.
Thatcher might be the first
women Prime Minister but the
present Tory policies, far from
solving the process, will only
worsen it. Thousands of work.
ina mothers will be torced out
lany dependent on tner nus
For thousands more
single-parent families, it will
mean living on a pittance doled
out by the state.
fight. None of the Labour MPs who spoke at the CAC rallies have yet pledged themselves to make abortion rights a key part of Labour Party policy. That will only develop by continuing
and fighting for its aims in the local Labour
It is not just a question, however. ormoro mare avoron a key plank in Labour Party policy. It is also a question of fighting to ensure that the next Labour government - when it is and legal curbs, the Tories will, of course, escalate their talk about "te-affirming' the values of family life. In the pre-election build-up, both Thatcher and Callaghan put great store on preserving the 'trad-
Socialist Action
Far from closing nurseries, what is needed if women are to have a chance of fulfilling themselves, is to extena tnem. Such a move would not only be of interest to women but also children who need the stimula. tion of contact and play with other children in the under 5 age-range.
There needs to be a comprehensive svstem ot state care which includes nursery classes, mother and toddler groups and child-minder drop-in centres under one root
ORGANISE
This will not happen by itself however. If the • Thatcher coverment is nor to de clow ed to push women back into ine nome, we neea to organtse
This coming July, a conference
organise a national child-care
SEXISM
• E
SCIENCE
campaign which has the potential ot drawing wide layers of women into action.
While fighting around a specific aim, such a campaign could also become part of the general fight-back developing against the Tory cuts. could raise the issue in the unions and Labour Party and call on Labour-controllec councils to oppose all cuts
Ibar culary those which
raude rursery piov.s.u.s:
Such a campaign 1. taker into and fought for in the labour movement, could play a serious role in orotectiu le rights of women and children.
elected - implements it.
Labour MPs have to be told in no uncertain manner that abortion rights cannot be left up to individual 'consciences'. It is a class question on wnien tney are expected to abide by the democratic will of the majority of the labour movement. And the mass action by the TUC on November 16th, last year, is a clear indication of where the labour movement stands on the issue!
The family life the Tories want to preserve? itions' of the family.
But the family life the Tories want to preserve is one in which women are reduced to the status of man-server and baby-minder, without any rights of their own
Page 3 scan of this page
FIGHTING POLICIES
April 80
On March 9th, over 100,000
responded to the TUC call for a
mass demonstration against the
Tories Employment Bill. Chant-
ing slogans from 'Support the
steelworkers!' to "Thatcher out"',
miners, engineers & car-workers
left little doubt as to their
attitude to the Tory anti-union
curbs.
Such a mood reflects the grow-
ing teeling among wide layers of
trade unionists, up and down the
country, who have been drawn
into bitter battles with the Tory
government over cuts, wages &
- as with the steelworkers - jobs.
VACILLATION
The militancy of the marchers
could be detected most clearly
at the end of the rally in response
to the TUC leaders' speeches.
Murray's offer to sit down with
the Thatcher government to
'discuss' the problem was drown-
ed in a barrage of heckling.
No doubt the demonstrators
recalled that - apart from giving
support to the anti-Corrie march
last November the TUC has
revealed a masterly inactivity in
the face of the Tories' offensive.
Refusal to organise the growing
opposition to the cuts has been
matched by refusal to support
the steelworkers (if not actual
sabotage of solidarity actions -
such as that planned by the S.
Wales TUC last February).
Now, when the unions them-
selves are under threat of being
taken back to the days of Taff
Vale. the TUC intends limiting
to Downing Street to negotiate
with Jim Prior. Calling on the
Tories to drop their legal curbs,
they have promised to deal with
"militant pickets' themselves
POSTPONE
The reason for the TUC refusal to give a fighting lead is, of course, because they see the situation in electoral terms. As far as they are concerned, hope lies in gritting one's teeth before the Tories' attack and waiting for the return of a Labour government in five years.
Such a perspective is also that of
rights
and economically dependent on the husband.
And what type of family life do the Tories want to maintain? The family life of people crowded 10 to a room in Liverpool or a Glasgow slum? The family life of wifebeating or child-battering?
THREAT
If the Tories succeed in their offensive, it will not only be a setback for women's rights but for the whole labour movement. The Thatcher government knows that by creating the climate that a woman's place is in the "home', they can weaken and divide the labour movement in its fight-back against their policies.
They know that it will be easier for them to turn 'men' against 'women' in the scramble for jobs that will increasingly open up as their unemployment plans begin
Labour's Leaders must adopt
their allies in Parliament who -
while denouncing Thatcher in
words - have argued against mass
actions and have actually denoun-
ied the see! pickets for their
coerce vi wages and jobs.
Unfortunately, unless the labour
leaders can be pushed into action
• or replaced by
rio jobs or social services left to defend in five years time. What
is involved is a life-and-death
struggle to defend working people from the most class-conscious government for decades.
ORGANISE
No doubt as a response to growing pressure, the TUC has now called another one-day 'protest' action against Prior's Bill on May 14th. While calling such an action, however, they have tried to limit its effect by leaving it up to individual unions to decide whether to strike or not.
This weak-kneed approach has
to bite.
They also know that, by making women economically dependent on their husbands, they can set up a reactionary brake on the militancy of male workers and their readiness to strike. The action by wives of Hadfield steelworkers -who refused to support the ISTC strike - is the type of situation the Tories want to encourage in the years ahead.
COMMON FIGHT
This is why the struggle against the Tory offensive is not just of concern to women - who stand to lose most - but of the entire labour movement. It is only by that movement taking up & pioneering the rights of women that the Tories' divisive tactics can be defeated and a united resistence mounted.
The support for the anti-Corrie Campaign by the TUC last November was a massive step in that direction. For the first time, the token pledges of support were
already been denounced even
by trade union leaders like Sid
Weighall of the NUR who has
valed foreto beared into a
Te may genera strine.
taken up and raised in trade those who wil! there hi. turn May 14th from a one-off protest into the start of a longterm campaign to stop the Tory anti-union curbs in their tracks.
FIGHTBACK
Pressure on the labour leaders
should not be limited, however, to taking a stand on the Prior
Bill. They should also be forced to spearhead opposition to all aspects of the Tories' anti-working class policies. They should be urged to organise the mass opposition to the cuts; to lead the fight against unemployment by pioneering the demand for the 35-hour week, and to fight turned into mass action, drawing thousands of Labour Party and trade union activists into the struggle against attempts to take women hack to the stone age.
That step forward has to be built upon. It is not just a question of fighting to get the Labour Party to include abortion rights in its Manifesto - and to implement that Manifesto when it is returned to power. Other issues are also at stake.
Ireland - now! the test.
Such a demand must clearly be
union and Labour Party branches
labour leaders must be forced to
DEMOCRACY ORGANISE leave.
for wage increases to keep pace
with the rise in inflation.
Moreover, they must also be
forced to support the struggles
of layers doubly victimised by
Thatcher's policies. The TUC
support for the mass anti-Corrie
rally last November is a clear
example of what is possible.
Under the mass pressure from
women - both inside & outside
the labour movement - the TUC
was forced to throw its decisive
weight behind a movement that
stopped the anti-abortionists
in their tracks. Similar pressure
must be brought to bear to
make them support the fight
against racist immigration laws
and to get the troops out of
LABOUR PARTY
The fight to make the labour
leaders act in the interests of
their members cannot be limit-
ed to the unions. It must also be
carried into the Labour Party
where figures from Callaghan
to Tony Benn must be put to
Where do they stand on these issues? Are they prepared to turn their anti-Tory rhetoric into concrete action now? Will they support the anti-cuts fight. the steelworkers' strike or the campaigr against racist immigration aws which the Tories have insiderably tightened)? It is oniy by pressure to make the labour leaders act - or to replace them by those that will - that a reall! united defence can he muried agains: the Thatcher government's attack.
It is also the surest way of guaranteeing that, when a Labour government is returned to office, it will be committed to a prog ramme of action in the interests of working people.
As part and parcel of this fight, the question of democracy will come ever more to the fore.It has already raised its head in the Labour Party as the last conference dramatically revealed.
It is only by fighting to extend democratic control over labour leaders - in the unions as well as the Labour Party - that we can ensure that they will carry out policies in their members' interests and that they can be replaced if they won't.
The mass opposition developing to cuts in social services has also to include real guarantees to preserve - and extend - nursery facilities and womens' right to a job. The opposition building up to Whitelaw's Immigration proposals has also got to include real antagonism to its blatent discrimination against Black women. And the mounting fight-back to Prior's Employment Bill has got to be based on pledges to restore women's rights to maternity
Such moves will not develop by themselves. It is only by women in the labour movement organising and fighting for their rights that the unions and Labour Party will begin to take them up.
Sabina Roberts (Streatham CLP)
page 3
PRIOR'S ANTI-
UNION BILL
The main aim of the Tories'
Employment Bill is quite simply
to destroy the ability of trade
unions to win a strike
Key among its provisions is
an attempt to curb 'secondary
picketing' used so successfully
in the 1974 miners' strike (that
brought the Heath government
down) or by the steelworkers
today. Under Prior's Bill, work-
ers will only be able to picket
outside their place of work -
picketing of suppliers. custom-
ers or other depots being made
legal
In order to give the Bill bite -
and intimidate union activists
- Prior proposes that illegal
pickets be taken to court and
sued for damages by companies
who can prove business has been
affected.
SOLIDARITY
It is not only secondary pick.
ets, however, that the Tories
want to eliminate. Equally high
on their list of priorities is
solidarity strikes. Under the
Bill, the support of the miners
for the steelworkers this year-
or the support of wide layers
of trade unionists for the Grun.
wick workers last year - could
become illegal
The Bill leaves the decision
on this question up to the
courts who will have to decide
whether solidarity actions are
likely to 'further' the dispute
or not. Considering the anti-
union bias of the Tory courts
- as in Denning s recent decis
ion against the steelworker.
there is little doub: what te
outcome will be
DEMOCRACY
Other provisions in the Bili.
while less important, are also
designed to weaken union power.
Closed shops, for example, will
only be allowed to exist after
80% of the workforce vote in
favour in a ballot.
Similarly, funds will be
provided by the government
to allow 'secret ballots' on all
major calls by the union for strike action. The aim of this
is clearly to erode the democ. racy of mass meetings by 'isolating' union members & thus opening them up to the prop aganda of the mass media and the bosses.
RIGHTS
It is not just union rights as a whole, however, which the Bill seeks to whittle away. It will doubly affect certain strata such as women members. Al present, all women are guaranteed maternity leave and the automatic right to re-employment afterwards.
The new provisions indicate that women will have to give a much longer written notice if they wish their jobs back and. even then, will not be guaranteed them. Small firms, in particular, will be entitled to offer 'suitable alternatives' which, if not accepted, could leave women without any employment at all.
GAINS
It is clear that the thrust of the Bill as a whole is to render unions ineffective in fighting back against the offensive being currently launched by the Tory goverinent Whether or not the government Is allowed to get awav with it. and implement any section of it against union members - depends on how seriously the labour move. movement campaigns to stop the Tories in their tracks
Jane Davidson
Page 4 scan of this page
Lambeth Council Backs Down
page 4
It is a pity that rate increases have dominated the fight against the cuts -to the exclusion both of working out a strategy to take the campaign outside the "far left' and also to challenge the bureaucratic way services are run
Dave Mcleod's attack on my article in Socialist Organiser -which is also the position of the Chartist Group - bristles with so manv errors and misconceptions that I must take the opportunity to delena our vicws.
WHO PAYS?
In the first place, in many Inner condon borougas. ousinesses Day the majority of the rates - 75% in Camden, for example. In the second place, the scale of rate increases we support rule out all cuts (which hit the neediest workers harder than rate increas es hit workers) & rent increases (which penalise one section of workers, without affecting the rates too much).
Thirdly, maintaining services by putting up the rates does "challenge the basic assumption that workers shouldn't shoulder the burden of the present crisis" by declaring that they should not have to sutter a decline in services but - rather - that these services should be improved
Of course, we demand that the central government cough up the money for this and - when they don't - blame the Tories for the rate increases.
INSULTING
::apate grossly insulting. if i were not so comical, ior Dave Mcleod to equate the Chartist rosition on rates with Jim Call¿ghan's policies of cutting back " services ars even more astorshing for him to suggest that rate rises would receive the same response from council workers as Callaghan received last winter
Actually, council workers in Lambeth (who, we are sure, are not exceptional) support rate increases because they believe it will save their jobs which would be decimated if the council went odikrudl.
CONFRONTATION
Council workers have very little power to hit their bosses more
When Labour-controlled Lambeth announced last year that it was going to make swingeing cuts -
in response to the Tory reduction
of the rate support grant - the
reaction of the local Labour
Parties was sharp.
The majority affirmed, at a specially-convened meeting in
Vovember, that Labour was
elected on a programme to
extend the social services and
not to reduce them in line with
the Tory cuts' programme. A
resolution - calling for a cam-
paign around a no cuts/no rate
increase position - was adopted.
Despite the councillors'
vacillation, that position was
accepted and a bold fight-back
launched to mobilise Lambeth
opinion against the Tory axe.
BACK-TRACK
It was clear from the beginning,
however, that the Labour council
- led by Ted Knight - only
launched the campaign under
Cuts Debate:
NO PRIVATE
BEDS
IN N.H.S.
HOSPITAL
than working class residents if they go on strike. Tower Hamlet Council were unmoved as rubbish decomposed in the East End markets and even when they were locked out of their own offices.
New tactics have to be devised which overcome these weaknesses, as town hall workers will not be aet avoid out corior allons indefinitely. But do the Socialist Action supporters suggest that councils enter into this confrontation now against their own workers and with tenants looking on indifferently?
ALTERVATIVE
We do not know how Socialist Action supporters in Lambeth can cam maracrease races al alternative to mobilising against the Tories. What about the 10,000 strong march through Lambeth last November organised by the council and for which they gave out thousands of leaflets?
Certainly, more can be done and certainly the council would buckle without constant pressure from council workers and Labour Parties - and other councils who also refuse to cut. Rate increases are not an alternative to fighting but a means of prolonging the fight and preparing for the situation where, if Hesaltine carries out his threat to penalise councils who overspend, rate increases will be
pressure. As the time approached for the council to draw up its budget for 1980-81, it increasingly began to have cold feet.
Worried that its no-cuts position and its national reputation as the 'marxist rebel-led' council had placed it at the top of Heseltine's chopping list, it began to back-peddle. Quoting
the dangers of confronting the
Tories in isolation, Knight
summed up the situation when he announced: "The strategy of
a no cuts/no rate increase means
that independent authorities
would face bankruptcy"
Instead, in a document widely
circulated to the four Lambeth
Labour Parties, Knight argued
for a substantial rate increase a
a way of maintaining services
and avoiding an isolated
confrontation with the Tories.
UNDERMINED
In the event, after discussion,
the council decided not only to
CHILDREN E
HAVE A
RIGHT TO 2
LIFE!
HOTS LO KIDS IGHT ON MANDIE
FIGHT
THE CUTS AVE impossible and the choice will either be cuts - or bankrupcy. If we argue that the latter way is preferable, then we must ensure that those who will suffer most are aware of the consequences & willing to enter the struggle.
Cde Misrahi is correct to argue that it's a pity that the issue of rate increases has dominated the anti-cuts struggle. As he points out, the central question is building a broad fight-back campaign
agreement.
what basis should the anti-cuts campaign be launched? It is here that the question of rates raises its head and the differences begin to emerge.
ALTERNATIVE
The essence of Cde Misrahi's position is that rate increases -which hit businesses harder than working people - are a temporary means of offsetting cuts in service ordered by the government. As my original article stated, this misses the point.
The aim of the Tory cuts is to make working people pay for their crisis. Tax concessions for the rich are to be paid tor by
put up rates by a mammoth 49.4% but also rents by an average of £1.50 a week and to cut back on 'uncommitted' growth items. The net result of this about-turn will be to set back the whole campaign Lambeth so vigorously launched and to undermine its standing among wide layers of Labour supporters in Lambeth.
these increases inflation is soaring around 17%
the burden of the present crisis
to fork out more so that the Tories can make their tax concessions to the rich.
been able to "balance its books'
the Tory axe falls twice as
again by an even larger amount while imposing yet more rent rises and making bigger cuts?
Hoping inflation.
CALLAGHAN
It is, in essence,
B.Misrahi
far worse.
The point remains, however, on
However the Council poses it,
at a time when
FIGHTBACK - will pass onto working people
Working people will be expected
Moreover, while Labour has
this year, what about next when sharply? Will it raise the rates yet
dirty work?
As the Tories' axe has fallen on local authorities up and down the
country, Labour councils face a dilemma. Wanting to fight back - yet
frightened of going bankrupt - they have voted for massive rate
increases. The size of these increases - as in the case of Lambeth which
has raised them by 49% - is necessarily huge.
But are rate increases the answer to the Tory cuts? Do they resolve
the problem or do they merely pass the burden onto working people?
Below Bernard Misrahi (Chartist Group) and Dave Mcleod (Socialist
Action) debate the issue.
working people through less jobs, hospitals and schools. Does put ting up the rates, as Cde Misrahi argues, challenge this?
On the contrary, it merely passes the burden onto them in a dis. guised way. Tax concessions are to be paid for not through cuts but by taking money directly out of workers' pockets in increased rates. Maybe small businesses do pay more, but that is little comfort to a council house family forced to pay out an extra few pounds a week at a time of gall-
However Cde Misrahi tries to justify it, his position violates a basic socialist premise: that working people didn't create the crisis and shouldn't have to pay for it.
the same position as that of the last Callaghan government - an analogy which Cde Misrahi finds 'insulting'.
But what is the difference? Jim Callaghan argued that it was better to have a Labour government making cuts than a 'brutal'
Tory one. And what is the argument in favour of rate increases?
That it is better to have a Labour council in power - making huge rate increases - than nasty Tory commissioners who would be
I can assure Cde Misrahi that Labour voters will treat these councils - such as Lambeth who recently upped the rates by 49% as wel! as rents by £1.50 - in the
Callaghan last year. Iney won't blame the Tories but the council that was prepared to do the Tories dirty work for them.
COUNCIL WORKERS
Cde Misrahi argues that council workers - such as those in Lam beth - could not be won to a no cuts no rate increase argument because it would mean the loss of their jobs. His argument is wrong because it falls into the Tory 'divide and rule' trap.
One cannot fight the cuts - and threatened redundancies - by making Peter pay Paul, by bleeding dry one section of workers coume tenants to oroo up all' other (council workers). The only way to protect jobs is to start
Ted Knight - reversed positions.
It is quite clear that, whatever Knight may say, it is quite utopian to think it will be possible to continue mobilising people against the Tories on the basis of cutting their living standards. Why should Lambeth residents support a Labour council which, instead of standing up to the Tories, actually ends up by implementing their
Fortunately, the decision by
Socialist Action from the premise that no workers should have to pay for the Tory crisis and fight for a united campaign.
This position has to be fought for in the local council unions as the only way to safeguard jobs. This year, councils like Lambeth have upped the rate by 49% and still have been forced to cut back on job opportunities. Next year, when the Tory axe falls even heavier, what will they do? Put up rates even higher and cut back even more savagely on jobs?
FIGHT
The problem with Cde Misrahi's position is that it ducks the need for this fight. Everything he says is to suggest that people 'aren't ready' for a confrontation, that it's 'too soon'. Rate increases -propping up services and jobs -becomes a substitute for a real campaign against the Tories. The point is that, unless socialists take a lead - and fight for councils to take a firm stand -it will never be time for a fightback. Whatever Cde Misrahi may say, councils are using the 'rate increase' tactic as a means of getting off the hook from a real fight-back.
Lambeth council, interestingly enough, proves the point. They led their mass struggle against the Tories on a 'no cuts/ no rate increases' position forced upon them by the local Labour Parties. Now that they have decided to increase •he rates- to aroid going bank
semblance of a campaign.
NO WONDER
And it's no wonder, It is imposs ible to launch a mass action fight against the Tories when the coun cil leading it is actually doing their dirty work by making workers pay TOTC CUS
If councils adopt such a policy -and many have - it will only put off a confrontation with the Tory government and ensure that when it does occur, it will happen after thousands of trade union activists have become demoralised by councils telling them that a fightback can be avoided.
D. Mcleod
by Ralph Wood (NUPE)
the Labour council has not diffused the struggle. Many
Labour activists support a no cuts/no rate increases position as does Lambeth NUT, Lambeth
Trades Council, CPSA Brixton
DHSS branch and the Lambeth
Fightback campaign.
SUPPORT
The key task now facing
Fightback - and Labour activists
generally - is to continue to
fight for a no cuts/no rate
increases policy within the
Labour parties and in the council
worker unions. A bold attitude
must be developed which can
knit together wide forces to
force Lambeth's Labour-controlled
council to adopt a real fighting pro-
gramme in the period ahead.
Unless this campaign is
developed, the right-wing in the Lambeth Labour group will gain
increasing ascendency and there
will be a growth of demoralisation and apathy.
Page 5 scan of this page
CARL VOTES FOR MASS CAMPAIGN
April 80 Mike Rodney (NALGO)
Last month, Keith Joseph dropped another bombshell. According to the 'guru' of Tory industrial strategy, Black immigrants are the cause of the mounting jobless total. Employers in the cities. it seems. have no incentive to move to depressed areas because of the ready supply of Black 'cheap labour'.
Joseph's novel idea shoul ...... as no surprise. li is mereil the latest installment in a general campaign haunched by the Tories against Black people. Just before the election, Thatcher was warning of the country being swamped by an 'alien culture' and Whitelaw was busy promising new curbs to the 1971 Immigration Act to limit entry still further.
The aim of the campaign - given its latest unsavoury twist in Joseph's speech - is clearly to whip up racist feeling in the labour movement. As the jobless total soars, the Tories hope to pin the anger and resentment on Black immigrants as a convenient "scapegoat'.
CHALLENGE
What makes Joseph's outburst
STOP THE
TORY
RACIST
LAWS
Phil Moore (South London CARL)
The mass CARL demonstration last November - which brought over 20,000 onto the streets - was a break-through in anti-racist activity. For.the first time, wide layers of the Black and labour movements joined together in common action against
Joseph Blames Blacks
for Jobless Total
dangerous is the fact that, over the years, Labour leaders have done nothing to counter such racist trends. Indeed, far from challenging them, they have tumbled indecently over each other in attempts to introduce ever harsher carbs agpins: Back
Wilson's 1965 White Paper and Callaghan's 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act were introduced with the boast tha: they would do mure to keep Blacks out than anything by Enoch Powell. In the last government, Callaghan was so eager to bring in tighter curbs to the 1971 Act that Alex Lyon - Labour under-secretary - resigned in protest.
Moreover, this cowardly retreat before racist pressure has even seeped into the TUC. Instead of seeking to defend Blacks victimised under the immigration laws, the 1978 Congress actually proposed police and immigration services •..should be afforded substantially more resources to urace overslavers and to tackle all aspects of illegal immigration".
DANGERS
The fact that Labour leaders have capitulated to racist moods has
the racist immigration laws.
The demonstration clearly showed the potential for building a mass, ongoing campaign that can begin to chalienge the whole logic of Acts which legalise racism in Britain and create the climate off which ultra-right groups (like the NF) feed.
CONFERENCE
The conference held in London on March 22nd was designed to do just that. Attended by over 100 delegates from Black, Labour & anti-racist bodies, a wide-ranging debate took place on how to take the campaign forward.
Agreeing that the focus for the campaign should be around the 1971 Immigration Act, a number of national initiatives were discussed for the coming months.
Joseph's speech will incite attacks like these on Black people. created the danger that, in the
could fall victim to demagogues like Joseph and see Blacks not as allies but as a threat to wages and jobs.
years. The struggle at the Red Star Textile Mill in Preston in 1965 is a classic case of the threat to the
to ram through a deal increasing
department by 50%. While the majority of workers in that section
white workers backed by local
the action, claiming it was racially inspired'.
SET - BACK
The result was not only that the
that, only a short time after, the
up proposals - to accept similar conditions.
ACTION
Key among these was support for the April 27th demonstration in Southall - called to commemorate Blair Peach - and support for the Bradford Asian Youth Movement's 'March for Freedom' on June 28th.
Building actions such as these, it was felt, would help to gain publicity for the aims of CARL and draw wider layers around it.
LOCAL GROUPS
In order to extend the campaign into local areas, it was also agreed to set up a number of regional committees - where possible - to co-ordinate activity and involve trade union and Black community support.
Such initiatives have, indeed, already been taken in a number
strike"
UNIQUE? working conditions.
difficult years ahead, white workers
the picnet ares
a number of examples over the past
whole workforce that can arise when employers can play on racist moods.
In that year, the employers tried
• productivity in the tyre-cord spinning CAMPAIGN
- who were Black - went on strike,
T&GWU officials refused to support
tactics.
strike was broken after 3 weeks and the deal rammed through. It was also
employers forced the white workers - not originally subject to the speed-
date.
PUBLICITY
UNITY IN ACTION
"Our struggle has taught us also that Black workers must never for a
moment entertain the thought of separate Black unions. They must join
the existing unions and fight through them. Where unions fail in their
duties to Black workers, they must be challenged to stand up for their
rights. The union is an organisation of all workers, regardless of race,
colour or sex. We believe in the unity of the working class. This unity
must be solidly established in deed and not only in words. It is the main
task of the trade union movement to create this unity".
(Statement issued by the Asian Workers' Strike
Ctte after the Imperial Typewriters' Dispute)
In other words, by playing on racial prejudice in white workers (and the union officials), the employers were able to divide the labour force and carry through a deal which undermined the working conditions of all workers in the mill.
As, indeed, a T&GWU shop steward later recognised, ". by accepting dual standards and giving up trade union principles, the white members of the union allowed the dispute to be turned into a coloured
The dispute at the Red Star mill is not unique in this respect. Other examples could be given such as that at Imperial Typewriters nearly a decade later when Asian workers struck against low wages and poor
The employers were able to defeat the strike because, once again, local union officials refused to back it and because white workers were active!! encouraged to cross
develop on a mass scale. By playing on racial prejudice to divide and weaken the labour movement, they hope to be able to ram through productivity deals and high unemployment which will be to the disadvantage of all workers
If the Tories divide-and-rule' offensive is to be defcated, then a serious fight has to be waged within the labour movement to force its leaders to stand up to these racist
Central to such a fight has to be a campaign to win Trade Unions and the Labour Party to a clear rejection of the racist 1971 Immigration Act (and the proposals to tighten it still further Whitelaw has placed on the statute books). It is this Act which, by denying Blacks entry on the grounds of colour and denying those who do get in elementary
of areas - from South London to Leamington - and delegates from local CARL groups reported on the success of their activities to
In order to help gain grass-root support, it was also agreed to publish a regular CARL bulletin.
Many delegates explained how important it was to expose the lies and falsifications in the Tory press on immigration and to get the real facts into peoples' hands.
The bulletin, it was agreed, should be the responsibility of a steering cttee elected at the conference. To ensure the widest representation on the citee, it was also agreed that all organisations attiliating to it would be able io seru celegates aiong
page 5 rights, legalises racism in Britain.
Far from implementing such acts when in office, the Labour leaders must be forced to abide by Labour conference decisions and repeal them immediately.
CARL
Moves in this direction are alread! underway. Last November, CARI (the Campaign Against Racist Laws mobilised over 20,000 in a mass protest against the 1971 Act and Whitelaw's latest proposals. Suppor ing it were not only Black organisations but the Labour Party NEC and over 30 Labour MPs (including Tony Benn who spoke at the rall! i
That was a major step forward but still only a step. The aims of CARL have now got to be taken into all trade union and Labour Party branches and the passive 'acceptance' of racism by the lab:.. leaders challenged head-on.
It is only by the labour movemer: noreering the rights of Black pet a against racist threats tire kristes by Kett laser te
NORSCARF
PLANS ACTION
Last month, a well-attended meet.
ing or Labour activists and allel
racists met m oroke on trent lo
discuss plans to combat Whitelaw s
racist plans. Chaired by Naill
Rodgers - president of the North
Staffs Campaign Against Racism
and Fascism (NORSCARF) - rep-
resentatives from the local Asian
community, Labour Party & CARL
were Dresent
All three speakers stressed the
need to buid real opposition in the
area against the Tory plans to tight-
en the racist curbs of the 1971
Immigration Act. Bhagor Taggar,
implications of these curbs & the
fear they inspired in many people
from the Indian sub-continent.
Gwynneth Dunwoody, MP for
Crewe, went further than just
attacking the present Tory prop-
osals. She correctly pointed out
unar previous Labour covernments
were equally at fault - by implem-
enting racist immigration laws •
and pledged her support for any
action against laws restricting
entry to this country on the basis
of colour.
Bob Swart, speaker from CARL,
pointed out that it was not enough
just to oppose these laws but that
a mass campaign - rooted in the
labour movement - was needed to
fight them. Referring to the suc-
cessiul demonsaadon organisec
by CARL last November, he went
on to explain the need to set up
local support groups around the
country to win forces in the per-
1oc anen or more determined
action.
Evervone in the meeting agree
that the key task in the coming
monus was not councruz ulud
right fringe groups such as the
Nr but opposing we racist drus
of the Tory government. It was
zoreen mat to co rorware un
NORSCARF would concentrate
on winning support I ute luca
Asian community and the labour
movement on dis Issue
MIKE VILLAYS
Page 6 scan of this page
What We Stand For SOCIALISTS LABOUR PA
page 6
thousands of Labour supporters.
right-wing allies in the labour movement).
around the following demands:
programme for those already on the dole.
living to offset inflation.
that put profit before people. & labour movement.
leaders.
London SE19.
SOCIALIST ACTION.
Editor: A.D. Scott
STEEL WORKERS
CARCIAL STRAI CAMPAIGN The aim of the Tory campaign is quite clear. First of all, they want to intimidate the pickets by the use of press smears, the courts and open brutality. The police are being encouraged to use the same tactics on steel pickets as they used - only a year ago - on Black Youth in Southall who were beaten up in large numbers and then carted off to the courts.
Secondly, they want to whip up an anti-union hysteria that will
Socialist Action sees as its central aim building, within the labour movement, a class-struggle left-wing fighting for socialist policies against those which lost Labour the last election and disillusioned
Such a left-wing should support not only policies in the interests of working people but also their allies among the youth, Blacks, women and oppressed national minorities. It is only by showing that Labour champions the rights of all the oppressed and exploited that a really united offensive can be organised against the Tories (and their
Socialist Action believes that a fighting left wing should be built
* Hands off the unions! No curbs on the right to strike or picket!
* For the 35-hour week! End unemployment by work-sharing
(with no loss of pay) and introduce a mass public works
* Oppose all wage curbs. For wage increases tied to the cost of
* Open the books of all companies claiming inability to pay a
decent living wage or threatening redundancies. Nationalise those
* Tax the rich not the poor. No cuts in the social services - for
social spending to be tied to increases in the cost of living.
* For women's rights. For the right of all women to abortion on
demand, free nurseries, equal pay and opportunity. Support NAC.
* Fight racism. Repeal all racist immigration laws. Defend the
right of Black people to organise as they see fit in the community
* For the right of all oppressed nations to determine their own
own future - Get the troops out of Ireland now!
* For a safe environment. End nuclear reactors and base an energy
strategy on coal. Explore alternative energy resources.
Socialist Action supporters, while fighting for the above demands, seek the widest possible unity of all forces in the labour movement around concrete issues. They also seek to encourage the widest democracy in the labour movement to allow all currents to argue for their point of view and for decisions to be mandatory on Labour
If you would like to find out more about Socialist Action - or contribute to it - write to: Socialist Action, c/o 58 Auckland Road,
Dist. Manager: Anne Williams Bus. Manager: Dave Macleod Typeset by Bread 'n Roses (TU) 01-485 4432 & Printed by Spider Web Offset (TU) 4 Rosemont Rd... IW3.
STEEL PICKETS cont. from P.1
enable them to introduce their Employment Bill as a means of restoring 'law and order. In reality of course, such a Bill is aimed at destroying elementary union rights to make victory almost impossible. As Winston Campbell again put it: "They want to smash flying and secondary pickets so that effective strikes become impossible".
FIGHT-BACK
There can be no doubt that the Tories see the steel strike as a test case. Only if they win this one can they introduce their anti-union laws and bring the axe down on workers in a number of other plants.
Thatcher faces quite a problem, however. The strike action by steelworkers • the first in over 50 years - has given them a first-hand experience of the Tory government, its courts and its police. It has made them more determined than ever to win a strike in defence of the right to work.
The best way to ensure that the struggle is won is to extend support throughout the labour movement.
The support given by the miners -ilarly those from South Wales and Yorkshire - showed the possibility of united action. In the coming period, that united action has to be extended still further.
The steelworkers mustn't be left to stand alone.
A. D. Scott
For a whole period - from the mid sixties to early seventies - the left in Britain grew up outside the labour movement. Its forces were based in the radical student layers drawn into politics around such issues as the anti-war movement to the fight for womens' rights.
pro-capitalist policies of Labour
layers tend to have a one-sided and unbalanced view of the labour movement. Under-estimating the loyalty
they felt that a mass socialist move-
labour movement.
While it was correct to help pioneer the struggles launched by these layers - in the interests of all working people - the left began to 'adapt' to its sectarian schemes. This was reflected most clearly in groups like the SWP which openly proclaimed itself the 'revolutionary party' and counterposed itself to the Labour Party at a time when the Labour Party retained the mass allegiance of trade unionists.
CHANGE
Locked within the sectarian schemes of its 'student' days, the left has therefore found itself unable to come to grips with the radicalisation opening up in the labour movement as a result of the Tories' onslaught on the unions. They have been unable to deal with a situation in which sectors of the unions play an increasingly decisive role not only in defending jobs and living standards but even the rights of oppressed layers (as when the TUC led the mass anti-Corrie rally last year.) discover. As sectors of the labour movement begin to radicalise, they do not look-as did the unattached radicals - to the peripheral organisations such as the SWP for a solution
the unions and the Labour Party.
the anti-cuts demonstration last
the party they built, vote for and
government.
Whilst instinctively hostile to the
leaders like Wilson or Callaghan, these
of working people to their organisations,
ment could take place by by-passing the
STRUGGLE
The reason for this is not hard to
but to their traditional organisations:
The thousands who marched on
November or the hundred-thousand who supported the TUC Day of Action out. on March 9th look for leadership not to small groupings at this stage but to IRONICAL
finance: the Labour Party. They know that, in the real world, it remains the
Don't Moke vur
Show Islington Council
Fight for more money from
central Goverment -not Cuts
only opposition to the present Tory
left.
This turn towards the Labour Party is not accompanied, however, by support for Callaghan and his pro-right-wing policies. On the contrary, as layers of workers look towards their party, they seek to bring pressure on it to make it adopt policies in their interests. It is this pressure from the trade unions which explains the malo struggle opening up within the Labour Party at present and its major move towards the lett. The decisive victories chalked up acairst Cal'achan or tre 3195:97 of democracy at the last conterence, the identification of the Labour Party with the mass actions opening up (such as the anti-cuts rally last November or the anti-Corrie rally), the formation of left-wing groupings such as the LCC are all indications of the response to this mass pressure.
This process - which is only in its embryonic stage - will deepen in the years ahead as Thatcher's hammer blows escalate the friction between left and right on issues of policy and party democracy. The fight for a new leadership is being hammered out within the unions and Labour party as ever-wider layers of workers seek to make it adopt policies in their interest and a democratic mechanism for ensuring those policies are carried
It is, ironically enough, this development which explains
Kids
the Way!
Socialist Action most clearly the crisis of the
Its disunity, loss of members and confusion stems from the fact that its sectarian policies place them outside the mainstream of radicalisation and impotent to influence it.
Unlike in the late sixties and early seventies, it is no longer the left which launch the mass struggles. It is not the 'left' which launched the mass anti-cuts demonstration or the mass rally against Prior's Employment Bill. It is those organisations -under mass pressure from their members - which groups like the SWP wrote off a few years ago as 'living corpses'.
What is even more significant is that even on those 'social' issues such as women's rights or the anti-racist question, the labour movement is increasingly coming to play a central role as it becomes clear that, without its backing, democratic rights cannot be maintained (let alone extended).
BANKRUPT?
Far from learning from the process, many groups such as the SWP seem to be reaffirming their sectarian course. The major turn to the left in the Labour Party over the past few years - under mass pressure trom ine unions
sitter off as me:.: retormist tau
It is, of course, true that for many leading figures on the left in the Labour party, the opposi tion to Callaghan stems less trom considerations of socialism but pressure from the rank and file. It is also possibly true that many of them have shifted to the left in order to be in a better position to 'head-off' the radicalisation and
direct it down safe 'parliamentary'
channels.
This is not, however, the point.
For thousands of workers - both
inside the Labour Party and the
unions - the new Labour left,
headed by Benn, represents a
political alternative to Callaghan
to which they are increasingly
adapting. It is not the SWP but
Tony Benn who is seen by these
figures as the major force for
change.
DENOUNCING?
Revealing the limitations of
Page 7 scan of this page
April 80
& THE
RTY
Benn cannot be achieved by denouncing Benn sectarianly from the sidelines. Such ultra-lett antics merely separate the SWP from those thousands of workers who are beainnina to listen to his arauments and who see in the LCC a torum tor debatina out an alternative socialist strategy.
If the SWP believes that Benn is a 'reformist trap', then they should be a part of the labour movement fighting shoulder to shoulder with wider forces around concrete policies that can put Benn to the 'test.
The sectarian attitude of counter-posing themselves to the Labour Party reveals, at the same time, a curious retusal to be involved in real struggle. If the SWP believes that Callaghan - and Benn - are leading working people aown a prina aney, do tney tnink they can solve the problem by abstaining from the fights against them in the Labour Partv? Isn't their attitude towards the Labour rarty telling botn tne ngnt and in their terms - the Benn left 'off the hook'?
LEFT-WING
The key place for socialists is not out in the wilderness proclaiming the need for a 'revolutionary party'. It is in the Labour Party fighting to build a class-struggle left-wing which can unite the widest torces aroune an action programme opposed to the rightwing. Such a lett does not have to be confined to passing 'pious resolutions in party wards.
On the contrary, such a left should be active on the streets building the anti-Corrie demonstrations, the CARL rallies and the actions to detend union riahts. it is only by rooting the struggle in the Labour Partv around mass actions outside that it will be possible to build a serious opposition to the right-wing around living policies.
The sectarian antics of groups like the SWP - turning its back on the mass party of the working class and counterposing itself to it - will increasingly lead to its cutting itself off from radicalising layers in the period ahead. Its already declining membership will decline still further and lead it into growing isolation.
UNITY
Surprisingly enough, it is only by adopting a serious orientation to the Labour Party that the
ed for criminal damage and resisting arrest...
the police.
locked the door behind them.
during the course and execution of his duty..."
Castle Bromwich in Birmingham).
potential will be laid for overcoming the disunity that already exists among the left.
It is only by charting a nonseclarian course lowaras une caboul Party that socialists, in a common organisation ana Inrougn comradely debate, can begin to work together and build up unity in action. In cooperating to build a class-struggle left-wing, with all different forces on concrete issues, the potential will be created for a more lasting unity.
Certainly by remaining on the fringes of the labour movement -isolated from the ongoing radicalisation - the fragmentation that currently exists will deepen rather Inan decin to be overcome.
TEST
In the years ahead, the left will face an acid test. will depend on whether they can cain o break oul or une seclarlari links witn ine past - ine links witn the student vanguard which still linger on - and develop a mass orientation towards the labour movement.
The attacks the Thatcher government is now launching will escalate in the coming years.
The radicalisation this creates -as wide layers seek to derend their living standards and democratic rights - will increasingly be reflected in the Labour Party as part ot an attempt to hammer out and test out all the leaderships.
For socialists to stand outside inal process will not lead to a step forward. It will ead to a deepening crisis in which more forces will be lost, the divisions will deepen and the confusion increase.
TORY LAW & ORDER
"The police arrived and they marshalled the waggons into a convoy & escorted them out of the plant. At this point, three pickets were arrest-
The police marshalled another 10 to 15 lorries into a convoy & forced the pickets to make a gang-way for them to pass through. During the course of this, several pickets were pushed to the ground and kicked by
One picket was dragged by his ears through the police cordon into the gatehouse where 10 to 12 SPG were located. Apparantly, the manager
The picket was then coshed and beaten by the police until he was unconscious. He was then dragged from the gatehouse, literally dumped in a police van and taken to Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield... After examination, he was discharged into police custody by the doctor. Then he was whisked out of the back entrance to Erdington Police Station where he was charged with assaulting a police officer
(Report by an ISTC official at the picket lines at Pressed Fisher Steel,
Terry Viney (NUT)
Everything Last February, the Rotherham headquarters of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation were firebombed. For once, Bill Sirs — General Secretary when he put the blame for the arson attack fair and square at the government's door.
people to beliere that we are evil when we are only trying to find a reasonable way to get our just demands". Sirs' comment is dead on target.
up by the Tory government against the steelworkers in particular and trade unions in general. Arson attacks have gone hand in hand
police brutality on the picket lines.
CONFRONTATION
Such a witch-hunt is clear proof of how desperately the Thatcher government needs to win the steel strike. Originally, they chose the steelworkers for a 'confrontation' because they were convinced they would provide no obstacle to pushing through their "rationalisation' plans.
had shown its weak-kneed attitude in the past, agreeing to plant closures and erosion of working conditions that had already led to drastic cuts in the workforce.
than in steel to implement their industrial strategy of making workers pay for the crisis? Fearful of taking on the miners - who had
only a few years earlier - the steelworkers looked 'easy meat'.
NEUTRAL?
It is pure hypocrisy for Joseph -and other Tory ministers - to pretend that they were in no way behind the dispute. It was Sir Keith Joseph who, last year, told Sir Charles Villiers to limit his pay offer to an insulting 4%. It was Sir Keith Joseph who was behind the announcement that plants would have to be closed all over the country and the workforce slashed by 52,000.
Moreover, it was Sir Keith Joseph who deliberately chose not to take the £70 million offered by
THE STEEL WORKERS STRIN - got it right
As he put it, Thatcher and her cronies were behind it for "leading
SUPPORT
The arson attack is the direct result of the hysteria being drummed
with denunciations in the press and into action.
next.
Atter all, the union leadership
Where better - they calculated -
WEAKNESS
brought down one Tory government
- the same week -
STEEL STRIKE
the EEC as a means of 'delaying closures and who refused a "reappraisal' of the f450 million offered in the pay area.
The reasons for Joseph's actions are crystal-clear: the Tories were planning a confrontation with the steelworkers from the beginning. They calculated that, having defeated them, this would serve as a precedent to demoralise other workers destined to feel the Tory axe in the years to come.
But, as did Heath with the miners in 1974, they miscalculated. Far from crumbling before the Tory offensive, the reaction among steelworkers up and down the country was so strong that they forced their vacillating leadership
Not only has the strike been 100% solid - among public sector steelworkers - but it has also drawn behind it the support of thousands of other unionists aware that defeat for the steelworkers places their heads on the block
Railway workers have refused to transport steel and dockers to handle it. Miners have instructed the NCB not to buy steel during the dispute and have (in South Yorkshire) held pit-head collections. Most important of all, thousands of workers - from the mines of South Wales and South Yorkshire - have manned the picket lines of private steel corporations as at Sheerness and Hadfields.
Any weakness in the strike so far doesn't come from the rank and file whose determination to see it through has grown and which has encompassed ever-wider layers -as last February 28th when over 250,000 workers in South Wales downed tools in solidarity.
Any weakness that has emerged can be placed at the door of the leadership of the union movement. There can be no doubt that the TUC, if it had swung behind the steelworkers earlier, could have ended the dispute within the month. But instead of backing the steelworkers, it has attempted to undermine their struggle and prevent solidarity actions by other
Isn't this what happened in South Wales when the Welsh TUC
page 7 called for a general strike from January 28th onwards to oppose general job loss as a result of plant closures? Far from backing this. the British TUC called on its Welsh cousin to postpone the call. More recently, it has declared a 'day of action' of its own on May 14th. But this is too little, too late. What the steelworkers need is solidarity action now.
DETERMINATION
Despite the lack of support, however, the determination of the rank-and-file steelworkers is strong The longer the strike goes on, the more resolute they become that the Tories will not succeed in 'rationalising' steel at their expense. The original demands of a decent wage have begun to exiend to jobs.
As Brian Molyneux (Stockbridge and Tinsley Park Strike Cttee) put it: "We are for 20% index linked with no productivity strings at a national or local level, and no redundancies". If rank and file steelworkers stand firm on this they will cut the ground out of any compromise Sirs may be tempted to make with the government
For us, in the wider trade union movement, our task should be to fight within our unions to get the maximum solidarity possible. Such solidarity should range from fighting for financial contributions to the strike funds to supporting the pickets wherever possible. The steelworkers strike is our strike. If they lose, we're next in line. FOR 20% INDEX-LINKED! NO REDUNDANCIES! WORK-SHARING WITH NO LOSS OF PAY!
CAPITALISM: A BALANCE
SHEET?
"What threatens mankind -
and it is as large a peril as that
- is a lethal and unpredictably
volatile mixture of starvation,
inflation, escalating unemploy-
ment, international monetary
disorder, protectionism, major
tension between countries
competing for energy and food
and raw materials, advancing
deserts, over-fishing, pollution
of the air and water, and the
arms race".
(Sunday Times: 17.2.80)
Page 8 scan of this page
page 8 Dave Mcleod (T&GWU)
On March 22nd - the day after Lord Underhill published his witch-hunting report into the Militant tendency - leading Labour rightwingers pitched into the internal debate in the Labour Party.
Adding his voice to the campaign being waged by figures such as Shirley Williams and David Owen, Neville Sanderson proclaimed that "..the worm has eaten so far into the apple that it is now rotten". His witch-hunting speech, which called for the expulsion of the Militant tendency, was published widely in the Tory press, anxious to support their right-wing allies. DESPERATION
The heat in Sanderson's attack is a measure of the desperation now creeping into the manoeuvres of the pro-Callaghan right-wing. While singling out the 'Militant' current for special venom, what they are really hitting out at is the overall shift to the left that has developed in the party in revulsion at
TOTTENHAM
TAKES LEAD!
Last January, Tottenham CLP
passed the following resolution
opposing the witch-hunt being
launched against the 'Militant'
tendency. Socialist Action urges
all Labour Party members to
back such a resolution & pass
similar ones through the local
branches.
Tottenham CLP, noting the
present orchestrated campaign
by the media, Tories and some
right-wing sections of the Labour
Party to start a witch-hunt against
the Militant tendency,
* strongly condemns this cam-
paign as an attempt, by enemies
of the labour movement, to cause
disruption in the party and begin
a counter-attack against the dem-
ocratic gains of the Brighton con-
ference;
* affirms our opposition to any
bans or proscriptions, and our
support for the right of political
renaencies to argue for ineur
ideas in the Labour Party, which
is the broad party of the British
labour movement;
* congratulates the NEC for
its decision not to give way to
this campaign and reopen the
'Underhill Report' case, & urges
it to issue a clear statement on
the lines of the points above.
NO WITCH HUNTS !
Callaghan's pro-capitalist policies.
These policies - which lost Labour the last election - alienated thousands of Labour activists and supporters. Moreover, that alienation has deepened as it has become increasingly obvious that Callaghan has no intention of leading a real fight-back against the Thatcher government.
On the contrary, while limiting opposition to Parliamentary debatescoring, he has directed his main criticism against those trade unionists - such as the steel pickets - fighting to defend their jobs and living standards.
CONFERENCE
Opposition to the Callaghan leadership could be seen most clearly at the last conference where significant victories were chalked up against him on the question of democracy. To curb MPs calmly overturning conference decisions, mandatory re-selection was agreed upon and discussion even extended to the question of whether conference -and not the 300-odd MPs - should elect the party leader.
Moreover, since the conference, further moves towards internal democracy have occurred. The NEC for example, recently voted against the proposal to publish Underhill's witch-hunting report into "infiltration' of the party. Even worse, for the right-wing, was the NEC decision to put that vote into practice by rejecting the expulsion of Ted Heslin, one-time EC member of the Oxford CLP and self-proclaimed Trotskyist.
Such moves show the increasing isolation of the right-wing as the mainstream of the party accepts the need for democratic internal debate as the way forward in deciding party policy. The fact that Eric Heffer, speaking at last month's YS rally could refer to Williams and her friends as a Tory 'fifth column in Labour's ranks' shows just how isolated they are becoming.
DENUNCIATION
It is in response to this situation that Sanderson & his allies- backed up by the capitalist press - have embarked on their shrill denunciations of so-called marxist infiltration'. The aim of these 'denunciations' is to intimidate the broad left and warn them that - whatever differences they have with Callaghan - they have more in common with him than marxist "authoritarians'.
Naturally enough, such denunciations have been launched under the fig-leaf of preserving "democracy. But what type of democracy is Sanderson and his media backers trying to preserve? The democratic right for a few MPs - conniving with unelected civil servants and bankers - to overturn Labour conference decisions and launch vicious attacks on working people who voted them to office?
The democratic right of these same MPs to censure and expel all those in the party who don't agree with them and who aren't prepared to sit quietly while they ram their anti-working class policies home? Is this the type of 'democracy' the right-wing are trying to defend?
ALTERNATIVE
Unfortunately, for Sanderson & his friends, however, his scare
tactics are not likely to succeed.
Labour party and trade union
of the Callaghan government -the right to present its ideas for
notion of 'democracy' seen by more and more labour activists as an elementary right.
LOYALTY
been preparing an escape route. Figures from Bill Rodgers to Roy Jenkins are, it seems, already sounding out "moderate' opinion
the party and either allying with the Liberals or setting up a third pally.
Just how many potential Mayhews and Prentices there are sitting on the opposition benches does not figure in the Guardian report. What does figure is the clear contempt for democracy among Labour's oh-so-democratic right-wing. As far as they are concerned, if they can't dictate to the party, they will wash their hands of it and walk away. just who are the 'fifth column' in Labour's ranks? The marxist left, which has remained loyal through
figures who are willing to split and compete against it if they can't railroad their policies through?
DEEPER
Whether the right-wing decide to cut and run or not, one thing is
in the period ahead, growing pressure will be exerted on the Labour Party to stand up and fight for working people who built it, finance it and vote for it.
of working people are hammered out, the question of democracy will be becoming ever-more relevant. More and more activists will want to ensure that democratic decisions are not just voted for but implemented. If Mrs Williams and her friends find this deplorable, they are indeed in the wrong party.
IRELAND: activists are - after the experience
beginning to view democracy in a different light. They are learning that it means MPs abiding by the wishes of those millions of members in the party which they represent.
Equally, it means ensuring, for all currents in the labour movement,
debate free from witch-hunts, gags and censure motions. Freedom of speech - while alien to Sanderson's
is being
Williams, and her allies on the right, might find such moves profoundly disturbing. But then, as the Guardian recently reported, they have already
on the possibility of splitting from
CRACK-DOWN forces.
Loyalist allies — in the North.
NEUTRAL?
As Eric Heffer so correctly said,
thick and thin, or these pro-Liberal certain. As the Tory attacks deepen
And, as policies in the interests
LOYALISTS CALL FOR
CRACK DOWN
by GRAHAM WEIGHT
On March 15th, over 15,000 Ulster Loyalists marched through the streets of Belfast to demand sharper curbs from the Tory government against the republican
Called by the bigoted Orange Order, the demonstration called tor major changes in the law which has already been 'adjusted' as in on ur las o can down on the democratic rights of the national minority. Chief among these is an attempt to make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment — to remain 'silent' under police interrogation.
The demands for increased repression are not a tee to une Orange bigots. They coincide with those of British army chiefs who have also called for more 'flexibility' in dealing with the nationalist
The feeling in army circles was summed up bv a maior currentiv serving in the North who told the Guardian: "Some people believe in selective internment. I believe in selective assassination".
No doubt the army - and their
- are worried by the growing confidence and unity emerging among the oppressed minoritv as it seeks to strugale tor its rights. This was reflected most clearly last February when over 10,000 marched through Armagh in protest against the treatment of prisoners denied political status
The convergence of thinking between the army and Orange bigots clearly gives the lie to the myth that British forces are in N. Ireland to 'keep the peace'. Far from being a neutral 'peacekeeping force', they are there to aid the loyalist forces in maintain-
London Labour calls
for troops out
by Phil Edwardes
On March 2nd, the Greater
London Regional Council of the
Labour Party voted, by a 10 to I majority, for troops out of Ireland. After a lively debate, a resolution was passed calling on the Parliamentary Labour Party
to "commit itself to a policy of withdrawal from N. Ireland"
The movers of the resolution disassociated themselves sharply from the 'bi-partisan' policy of the Labour leaders who, over the past ten years, have aped the Tories in pouring troops into the 6 Counties to crush the right of
Socialist Action ing a system which - for over 50
oppressed the Catholic minority.
Their main thrust - since their entry in 1969 under 'sunny Jim Callaghan' - has been to destroy the struggle for democratic rights launched by that minority by a mixture of intimidation, internment and murder (as on Bloody Sunday).
As Thatcher's much vaunted 'constitutional conference' falls apart - as so many other British initiatives have - the voice of the army chiefs and the Loyalist bigots could once again prevail and the repression in the area escalate.
TROOPS OUT
This is why it has become increasinaiv vital that the campalar to remove the troops from Ireland be stepped up. The army is not there to prevent a blood-bath (as the popular media protest). Its very presence in the streets of Derry & Belfast - upholding a brutal and repressive system -constantly creates te possibility of one. Only removing the army and leaving the Irish free to determine their own future can escape continuing violence in the future
Fighting to get the troops out means fighting to break the Labour leaders from their bi-partisan block with the Tories which, instead of defending democratic rights, actually ends up on the same side as the Orange bully-boys. This is true not only for Callaghan but aso benn who. desote nis verda support for a 'united Ireland', opposes the withdrawal of troops
We have to fight to win the labour movement to grasp that, protecting te rignts or une Irish people today is the surest way of protecting ten own democratic rights tomorrow when the Tories Decim to empioy trooss over nere against strikers and other working class struggle. the nationalist minority to self-determination.
The resolution, it is true, did not call for a "troops out now' position and no doubt its success was partly due to the fact that many were able to support it without committing themselves to an active campaign today.
Nevertheless, it was a major step forward in condemning the pro-Tory stance of the Labour leaders and calling for a serious debate in the labour movement on the question of Ireland. It is up to all socialists to echo its call on the NEC to open up a wide-ranging debate on the question in the period ahead
Page 9 scan of this page
April 80 Len Wagstaff (ASTMS)
When 100,000 steelworkers downed tools last January, it was not only in reply to BSC's insulting 4% wage otter, It was also in response to Charles Villiers statement that 52,000 jobs were at stake. Areas like S. Wales were to be reduced to the industrial deserts they were at the height of the 1930's slump.
The BSC is not alone, however, in trying to recoup its losses by closing plants and throwing thousands on the dole. German steelworkers, only last year, struck for 7 weeks against redundancies and, slightly earlier, French steelworkers led a 100,000 strong protest against plant closures. Nor has Japan been spared. 16 out of the 59 biggest furnaces have recentl! been shut down.
But what is behind these lay-offs? Is it because of a shortage of steel? Is it because raw materials are not reaching the plants? On the contrary thousands are being thrown on the scrap-heap because there is a glut' of steel in a rapidly shrinking market.
And what is true of steel is also true
-as the dole queues show - for engineering, textiles and coal.
OVER-PRODUCTION
This problem of 'over-production' has its roots in the end of the post-war "boom'. Building on the
ashes of the war and using the
technology developed in the war years - industry expanded. More and more workers were hired as
Tory ministers scoured the colonies
New from
Pathfinder:
Whad
king People
Wild Know
JOBLESS TOTAL SOARS
in search of new sources of labour.
But capitalism cannot expand indefinitely without leading to a crisis. As each industry manufactures and sells more goods, markets inevitably become 'saturated'. There aren't enough customers. Production is cut back and workers begin to be laid off.
Isn't this what is happening not Mass action needed to stop closures only in steel but, for example, in cars? Why is British Leyland threatening 40,000 workers with the sack? Because, as Michael Edwards recently put it, there are too many cars in a 'glutted' market.
And these workers, when laid off, undergo a decline in purchasing power which means sales are cut back elsewhere. A vicious circle is
set up and the economy spirals into
depression
COMPETITION
In a situation of world recession, however, British industry is at a
sharp disadvantage compared with its 'foreign' competitors. Its old-
fashioned and outdated techniques mean that, in the sharper competition that develops for declining markets, it increasingly loses out.
The Thatcher 'solution' to this
problem is worse than the disease.
In its attempts to make industry
more competitive - through rat-
ionalisation schemes, mergers
and speed-up - it will only create
more unemployment. The new
techniques brought in will not
improve working conditions but
- as at British Steel - be used to
throw thousands on the dole.
Moreover, financing these new
schemes means diverting money
from the social services -- trom
health, education and housing -
to help ailing firms. This will
only increase the jobless total
further as thousands of nurses,
teachers and other public employ-
ees are thrown onto the dole
cucuts.
FIGHTBACK
The only alternative to the Tory
strategy is to fight for bold social-
ist policies. Unfortunately, the
TUC and Labour leaders - while
opposing Thatcher's remedies -
do not propose anything radically
different. Calls for 'greater aid'
to companies in distress and for
"impor controls' are no solution
to mounting dole queues.
'Import controls'
TUC is now trenuously pushing for
- are an attempt to protect
workers' jobs at the expense of
workers in other countries. It
merely exports unemployment'. This will not only lead to workers in different countries competing with each other instead of uniting in a common struggle against an ailing system. It will also provoke similar measures in France, or W. Germany, leading to a 'trade war' in which workers of all countries lose out. to pour more money into ailing
in state aid to rationalise such firms merely takes place at the
into Chrysier to stop it going
the expense of..10,000 jobs!
FIGHTBACK
The only way to begin the fight
not create the present crisis and
should thousands of workers be
of inter-capitalist competition as recession looms?
where redundancies are planned,
against the introduction of new slashed tomorrow. If industries
present manning levels, then the
of the company's finances.
for it to be nationalised under workers' control. Why should
given employer?
already on the dole. In order to
- which the
for tens of thousands of skilled
workers at nresent sitting idle.
plants.
Likewise, calling upon the state
industries is equally utopian. Pouring
DISRUPTIVE expense of jobs. What happened in 1976 when the Labour government was urged to pour over £55 millions
bankrupt? It 'rationalised' itself at
Robinson sacked.
against unemployment is by starting from the premise that workers did
should not have to pay for it. Why
thrown on the scrap-heap because
A central demand should be that,
'work-sharing' should be introduced with no loss of pay. Workers are not
marchinery. On the contrary, it is to be welcomed if it benefits the workforce - who produce all the wealth and does not lead to thousands of them being thrown on the scrapheap. SURPRISE
This demand, already popularised by many unions - such as the POEU - in the call for the 35-hour week, is central if jobs today are not to be
maintain that they cannot afford
demand should be raised for 'opening the books', so that representatives of the workforce can find the real state
If the company is in difficult straits, then the call should be made
thousands be thrown on the dole because of the "inefficiency' of a
Equally important, the unions must campaign and fight for those
unite the amployed and unemployed alone. in a common struggle, the unions should boldly campaign to increase KILL - not decrease - public expenditure on schools, hospitals and other services which would provide jobs
LEYLAND WORKERS
AFTER ROBINSON
Bob Swart (T&GWU)
Recently, Leyland workers voted 9 to 1 against strike action to reinstate victimised Longbridge convenor Derek Robinson. Robinson's dismissal is a major triumph for 'whizz kid' Michael Edwardes who made it into a clear battle for power. What went wrong?
When Derek Robinson was sacked last November - for signing a pamphlet attacking Leyland management's "recovery' plan -the response of the workforce was immediate. The very next day, Longbridge closed down. Canley, Castle Bromwich and Brown's Lane had walk-outs and mass meetings were held in many other
The size of the action was so great that even the press - which was solidly behind Edwardes' move - began to have doubts that he may have miscalculated in taking on such a key figure as Robinson.
What undermined this militant action was, quite simply, the intervention of the AUEW Executive. Refusing to make the strike official - despite requests from the workforce and other unions, such as the T&GWU -they ordered the men back to work and announced their own inquiry into Robinson's activities.
They then sat on the issue for over two and a half months to allow the steam to go out of the affair. When they did eventually publish their findings, it was in such a way as to provide Leyland management with enough ammunition to keep
While critical of Leyland for sacking Robinson - and calling for his re-instatement - the bulk of the union report turned its fire against their own convenor. The three-person inquiry team criticised Robinson for 'disruptive action', said he had no right to sign the pamphlet and concluded that he had been guilty of 'serious failings and lack of responsibility in relation to his duties as convenor.
Edwardes actually made use of much of this criticism by reprinting it on leaflets management handed out to the workforce in an attempt to fuel a shop floor resistance to any form of 'reinstatement strike'.
Moreover, while the report called
for strike action to get Robinson
his job back, it carefully underlined
the fact that it would understand if
the workforce took no action and
that no disciplinary measure would
be used against them.
Naturally enough, after under-
mining the initial response to
Robinson's sacking, sitting on a
report for almost three months and
then making the bulk of it a
criticism of their own convenor,
the Duffy leadership were hardly
spurring their members into action.
This was reinforced by the fact
that they warned that strike action
would be 'extremely damaging
and that it would, in any case, be
limited to the Longbridge plant
The Edwardes' management, sensing
the demoralisation among the work-
force from this lack of leadership, moved quickly in for the kill. Just
page 9 before the vote on the Executive's proposals was due to be held, they announced that 50,000 jobs might have to be laid off because of the low sales performance of BL cars.
This threat was intended as a clear warning to workers in Longbridge that, if they were to strike, its impact would be negligible and they might not be re-employed anyway.
Is it any wonder that, with jobs at risk and with a union leadership that couldn't even defend that of one convenor - let alone 50,000 workers - the Leyland workforce voted overwhelmingly to stay at work?
THREAT
There can be no doubt that the dismissal of Robinson is a real blow for rank-and-file organisation in Leyland. It is already being used by a victorious management to prepare for even stronger attacks on the workforce.
The recent deal proposed by Edwardes - a meagre 5-10% increase coupled with a whole series of productivity strings - is clearly designed to erode still further union rights and working conditions. Clearly, Edwardes sees the back-down over the Robinson dismissal as the 'green light' to a management offensive.
In order to ram home his proposals, he is still keeping the threat of mass redundancies and plant closures over the heads of the workforce.
POLICY
Despite the Robinson dismissal. however, Leyland workers obviously do not intend to take this lying down. In a recent ballot of the members, over 90% voted for a clear rejection of the deal.
What Leyland workers lack is not militancy but a clear policy to defend jobs and working conditions
- something that the AUEW Executive, and even the shop stewards Combine headed by Robinson, were unable to provide.
Indeed one of the reasons Leyland workers refused to strike
in favour of Robinson is that, quite simply, they had no answer to the threats of plant closures he was dangling over their heads.
These answers have been provided by the steelworkers who have been faced by the same problems only on a bigger scale.
Instead of backing down before closure threats, they have declared
mass action in favour of a decent living wage and in favour of work. sharing (with no loss of pay) against redundancies.
Page 10 scan of this page
AFGHANISTAN
page 10
WAR DRIVE !
Last month, Carter's call for a
boycott of the Olympic Games -
due to be held in Moscow this
summer - was endorsed by the
House of Representatives. The
boycott 'tactic' is merely the latest
move in the anti-Soviet witch-hunt
launched by Washington since the
intervention in Afghanistan.
It has been backed by the
cutting of trade and diplomatic
links with Moscow, threats to re-
introduce the 'draft" and calls to
boost NATO. Naturally enough,
such sabre-rattling has won the
support of Carter's most strident
ally - Margaret Thatcher - who
has herself floated the idea of
bringing back conscription.
The attempt to whip up anti-
Soviet hysteria has, of course, been
carried out on both sides of the
Atlantic under the guise of
protecting the 'independent Islamic
people' of Afghanistan from
Moscow's expansionist policies'.
DEMOCRACY?
If such moves were not so dangerous,
they would be laughable. Is it really credible that a government
which spent over 10 years pounding
the Vietnamese into the ground is concerned with the 'right' of the
Afghan people to self-determination?
Is it really believable that governments which have propped up the military butchers of Chile and Brazil, backed the apartheid regime in South Africa and kept an army of occupation in N. Ireland are worried about the democratic rights' of the Afghan workers and peasants?
Hardly. Concern for human rights is the furthest thing from the mind of Carter and Thatcher as they seek to build up a cold-war atmosphere against the Soviet Union. Their concerns are more sinister.
WORLD COP
One of the main aims of the anti-Soviet propaganda spilling out of the press at present is to undermine the mass anti-war feeling that grew up in the USA (and elsewhere) in the late 60s in response to Washington's genocidal war in Vietnam.
The depth of this anti-war feeling has been a major handicap to US governments in their role as 'world cop' over the past decade or so. It has helped prevent them directly intervening against liberation struggles around the world - as in Iran, Nicaragua & Zimbabwe - Which threaten imperialist interests.
By trying to pose the USSR as an aggressive power, it hopes to change this opinion and free its hands on the world arena. Increased
STOP THATCHER S
military spending and a 'pliant'
public opinion will, it considers,
equip it for more resolute action
against liberation struggles that
challenge its interests and enable
it to intimidate more openly
workers' states like the USSR.
Another key aim of the anti-
Soviet drive is to defuse growing
opposition, in the capitalist
countries, to attacks on living
standards and democratic rights as
the recession begins to bite.
Holding down wages and
slashing social services can be
"justified' by the need to pour
money into defence spending to
secure the nation against Soviet
'expansionism'. Isn't this exactly
what Thatcher is doing? At the very time of lopping millions off health, education and housing, she has proposed 'upping' defence spending (on Polaris missiles) to the tune of £4000 million.
DEFENSIVE
Unfortunately, far from challenging the cold war hysteria being whipped up by a Carter or Thatcher, Labour leaders have meekly gone along with it. Jim Callaghan and other front-bench spokespeople have been only too willing to add their voices to the chorus denouncing the USSR intervention as a 'threat to world peace'.
It is not, however, the USSR which is a threat to world peace. Despite Moscow's bureaucratic methods, its intervention in Afghanistan last December was motivated on defensive grounds. It was to protect the Amin government's progressive social measures trom being overturned by US-backed reactionary guerrillas.
The real threat to world peace comes from London and Washington now so energetically beating the war drums. The aim of such a campaign is clearly to prepare the ground for military action abroad and to undermine, at home, mounting opposition to their anti-working class policies.
THRUST
It is for this reason that socialists completely oppose the hysterical calls in the press on the USSR to withdraw its troops. Whatever differences may be held with the bureaucratic methods of the Kremlin, the advance of the Red Army was to defend the gains of the Amin regime against a rightwing backlash.
In a civil war - such as the one developing in Afghanistan today -socialists must take a clear position. Certainly they do not call upon forces aiding the fight against reaction to withdraw from the battlefield and leave it open to US-backed monarchists and other reactionary forces.
movement.
The pro-Moscow PDPA
of growing unrest with the landlords.
the new PDPA president,
the beginning of a 'national democratic revolution'. OPPOSITION
Naturally enough, the measures introduced by the
whose privileges were undermined. Landlords, usurers, former military officers and
armed resistance.
Operating from bases in neighbouring Pakistan, these
ton dubbed them) became a growing threat. Hit-and-run attacks were made against
regime's measures became a potential target.
confined to outlying areas. In
provoked a brief rebellion in Herat, the third largest city, in • which 120 PDPA members and their families were massacred. Smaller armed actions were ionary forces in Afghanistan.
vention a 'violation' of the
less lofty. As the New York
into the government "... will depend largely on convincing
to the CP daily are said to be
ership position. These worker
they were looking for a party that stood on the side of the oppressed against capitalism.
Their revulsion at the CP leaders' pro-imperialist line -as on Afghanistan - will, in the period ahead, open their minds increasingly to those who do oppose class-collaboration and imperialism.
What attitude should socialists take to the Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan? Are the Labour leaders - and certain forces on the left -
correct to call for their withdrawal as a violation of Afghan rights? Or, on
the contrary, is the intervention a boost to the Afghan revolution. Below,
Pete Henning takes up the issue which is being debated through the labour
to power in 1978 on the backs
repressive Daud regime. Despite its narrow base of support - it had only 10,000 members at the time of the uprising - it pushed rapidly ahead with a programme of social measures to break the grip of the Afghan
Such measures included land reform, a literacy campaign, legal recognition of trade unions and the introduction of elementary rights for women. Taraki,
announced the programme as
PDPA met with deep hostility from those layers in Afghanistan
drug peddlers began to organise
BACKING "freedom fighters' (as Washing-
government offices, military outposts, schools, villages and even mosques. Anyone favouring the
Such actions were not only
mid-March 1979, rightist forces
DISSENT IN
ITALIAN CP
Leaders of the Italian CP are meeting wide-spread anger from rank and file members over their 'condemning of the Soviet decision to use troops against react-
The CP leaders call the inter-
Comoalanes
principle of self-determination.
But their real considerations are
Times pointed out, the chances of the Italian Stalinists getting
non-Communist Parties that they are independent from Moscow".
This is the real reason behind their position which they have tried to force down the throats of the party mass base. Letters
running 5 to 1 against the lead-
militants joined the CP because
Right-wing guerrillas backed by Washington
carried out in Kabul itself.
From the outset, these forces
won the unbridled support of
Washington, deeply concerned
over the Afghan development.
A little more than a month after
the 1978 uprising. - O gerierais. admirals and diplomats met at
the NATO Atlantic Command in Annapolis to assess the impact
of the revolution and to discuss a possible response.
The first step was to cut off all economic aid to the new regime. The second was to mount a mass propaganda campaign to portray it as repressive' (carefully hiding all mention of the progressive measures it was introducing). The third was to begin aiding the reactionary forces based in Pakistan (under the benevolent eye of the military dictator General Zia).
According to the Washingtonbased magazine Counterspy, US aid to these guerrilla forces included financial support, equipment and the use of CIA members in the training of
INADEQUATE
Faced with this growing menace, the PDPA regime proved itself to be quite inadequate in defending the Afghan revolution. The leaders of the party - Taraki, Karmal & Amin -- were Stalinist by training and experience. Like their mentors in Moscow, they thought the revolution should be 'contained' within a national democratic stage (which meant tying the working class to a bloc with the 'progressive' sectors of the ruling class).
What this meant in practice was that the PDPA regime constantly sought to limit the revolutionary development within the "scheme' they had set out. They were frightened of mass mobilisations of the workers and peasants in case their actions 'got out of hand' and went further than intended.
This was evident both in the
Socialist Action
seizure of power - when only
'controlled' demonstrations
were promoted - and in the
way they tried to push through
their programme of reform. LIMITED
There can be no doubt that these reforms were progressive in their attempt to break the back of the old land-owning class in Afghanistan. Instead of relying on the masses to carry them out, however. te PDPA government used the forces of the state. This bureaucratic method only alienated many workers and peasants who became open to the propaganda of the rebel forces.
Under the literacy campaign. for example, PDPA activists who went into the villages to organise classes immediately tried to introduce co-education without regard to the problem ot so doing in areas where women were bradluonally segregated from men in public life.
Similarly, in carrying out land reform, insufficient attention was paid to organising the provision of agricultural assistance to the new peasant owners who had previously relied on landlords for seed, tertilisers etc.
REPRESSIVE
Moreover, the regime resorted more and more to repression to combat any forms of dissent. Criticism of bureaucratic methods used was met with dismissal from posts, imprisonment or execution. The Aqua, a secret police force assisted by Soviet advisers, was set up to deal with any opposition.
This lack of democracy combined with the bureaucratic methods of the regime - alienated a large amount of potential support and ensured that the popularity of the PDPA remained narrow.
Its ability to combat the reactionary forces was further weakened by the intense factional struggle that emerged within its ranks and which sapped its morale. It was as part of these struggles that, in 1979, Taraki was deposed and Amin came to powel.
Page 11 scan of this page
April 80
The facts
MOSCOW
As the PDPA regime grew increasingly unable to deal with the rightist offensive, it appealed to Moscow for support. While the latter was willing to despatch military and economic advisers, it refused to commit itself openly at first in the hope that the reactionary revolt would be crushed.
By late 1979, however, when it became obvious that the PDPA regime was unable to deal with the situation - and that an openly pro-imperialist regime might be established on its borders - it decided to act.
Deposing Amin in typical Stalinist fashion, as a 'scapegoat"', it sent in 70,000 troops in December 1979 to crush the incipient take-over which it clearly saw as a threat to its own borders.
SUPPORT
There can be no doubt that the bureaucratic methods employed by the Stalinist PDPA was serious hindrance to the defence of the Afghan revolution. There can equally be no doubt that the way Moscow intervened in the situation also hindered its defence.
The deposing and execution of Amin as a 'CIA agent' and his replacement by Karmal has obviously made it easier for Washington to whip up a campaign to politically isolate the USSR and the new Afghan
Nevertheless, despite Moscow's bureaucratic methods and conservative motives, the dispatch of troops to Atghanistan was an important aid to the revolutionary process there.
RED ARMY
The aim of the Red Army was not to destroy the social gains of the workers and peasants but to defend - in however bureaucratic a fashion - those gains against reactionary forces backed by Washington
Karmal 's new government has made it clear that it intends basing itself on the programme of the April revolution and to defend the social gains that have already been achieved.
Moreover, a campaign has been conducted to convince the population that arbitrary arrests will be halted and that 'bureaucratic mistakes, made in the implementation of the reform programme in the past, will be corrected. Clearly, these measures are intended to win the new regime wider support.
WITHDRAWAL
It is clear that, despite the press hysteria in the West, the entry of the Red Army halted in its tracks a mass pro-imperial-
U
TURKE
IRAQ
ABSTENTION
The situation that exists in
Afghanistan today is not entirely
new. A similar situation arose in the
late 30s when the Kremlin 'invaded'
Finland.
Outrage at this invasion was not
contined to western covernments
but also infiltrated the socialist
movement wno called tor the with-
drawal of the Red Army.
trotsky, who analysed the
situation in some detail, drew dirier
ent concusons wich would De
worth the study by those on the
leit today who call (in nowever
muted a form) for the withdrawal
of Soviet troops. Warning of a
tendency to 'abstentionism under
the cover of ultra-radical slogans,
he wrote:
"In order to punish the Stalinist:
for their questionable crimes, the
resolution.. does not mention by so
much as a word that the Red Army
in Finland expropriates large land-
owners and introduces workers'
control while preparing for the
expropriation of the capitalists.
Tomorrow the Stalinists will
strangel the Finnish workers. But
now they are giving - they are
compelled to give - a tremendous
impetus to the class struggle in its
sharpest lorm. ne leaders or une
opposition construct their policy not
upon the 'concrete' process that is
taking place in Finland, but upon
democratic abstractions and noble
The Soviet-Finnish war is appar-
antly beginning to be supplemented
by a civil war in which the Red
Army finds itself at the given stage
in the same camp as the Finnish
petty bourgeois and the workers.
while the Finnish army enjoys the
support of the owning classes, the
conservative labour aristocrac! and
the Angio-saxon imperialists.
The hopes which the Red Army
awakens among te tinnish pool
will, unless international revolution
intervenes. prove to be an illusion
the collaboration of the Red Army
wat the poor aill
ar...He know all this now and
we openly say it as a warning.
Shut in anis concrete cvn wal
that is taking place on Finnish
territory, what concrete position
must the concrete partisans of the
Fourth International take? If they
fought in Spain in the Republican
camp, in spite or the lact that the
Stalinists were strangling the
socialist revolution. al the more
must they participate in Finland
where the Stalinists are compelled
to support the expropriation of the
capitalists".
(In Defence of Marxism. Pathfinder
Press. p. 57-58) ist movement which could have overturned all the progressive measures introduced to date.
To continue the defence of the revolution - and to definitively destroy the US-backed reactionaries - much more needs to be done. Above all, the workers and peasants will have to be mobilised and organised to advance their class interests against those of imperialism (and the local exploiters).
Any effort by the new Karmal regime or Moscow to hold back the revolutionary process will enly further endanger the gains already made.
S S
"Why do socialists single out industrial workers as the most decisive sector of the working class?", writes P. Whitlock
more important than wnite cola. unionists who have been much more active in the fight-back against the Tory cuts?".
The answer to Cde Whitlock's question is simple. In the political struggle against capitalism, certain sectors or une workmg class nave la more power than others. Steelworkers, tor examole nave lar more leverage than teachers - a point that has been evident during the recent steel strike
taken acuon against tne tor! culs teachers civil servants erc -
which. has had the bigges: impact and brough. une govemment up short.
ECONOMIC
Tom : "ures economie coin: of view there are two aspects to this greater power. The tirst is simply that. withoul the operation of basic industries, the economy of any modern country wil rapidly grind to a halt.
back to the 1974 national coal strike - which brought down the Heath government -Within weeks of the strike being declared, power stations, steel plants and factories - all dependent on coa. Dear Cde, involved in campaigns which can attract young people.
the YS to become a campaigning organisation, taking up issues such
I think is becoming increasingly important: youth unemployment.
were to become involved in these issues, it could grow very rapidly.
a big struggle against the Militant
the organisation.
Yours comradely, PL (Richmond)
Dear Cde.
In the last issue Action, Dave Messa Misrahi round!!:::* position o:: increases.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIALISTS
of N. London. "Why are they considered
transported.
PROFIT
Although millions of workers have
it has been
industria workers.
POWER
You have only to cast vour mind
to see the truth of this.
or coke - were threatened with closure.
I was very impressed by Graham Weight's article on the LPYS in the last issue of Socialist Action. In my opinion, one of the big problems of the YS is that it has never really got criticised.
Graham mentions the need for
as the cuts, women's abortion rights, Yours comradely, nuclear power and Ireland. I would agree, but I would add another which
Dear Cde,
Like him, I think that if the YS
Unfortunately, to do this will mean
tendency which presently dominates
at the recues.
Industrial Workers
Without the production or coal - or steel, machine tools etc - everytning comes to a stop. If coal is not dug, power stations close down. li steel is not produced, car factories lie idle. If the trains do not run, goods cannot be
Moreover, these basic industries also represent the biggest single source of profits for the British ruling class. 1 ney are the main source or au nose revenues that are used to keep the government, service and 'professional' sectors of the economy going.
Because of this, as the ruling class seeks to increase its profits and to improre its competitive position on the world market by driving down wages. ine brunt or ls attack mus increasingly be directed against the
The attack by Thatcher on the wages & iobs ot workers in the service sector - which we are witnessing at present - represents only the preliminary skirmishes in the class battle that is shaping up
But, just as the industrial workers represent the main target of the ruling class. ther are also in the best positior to resist. This is true not only because of their economic weight but also because of political considerations.
POST BAG
While I would agree with Cde McLeod's analysis, I think it was untair to publish such an article without allowing readers a chance to see the article that was being
In matters of debate, readers should always be allowed to see the two views and to make up their minds on the merits of the argument.
Dave Purser (North London)
I read your article on Afghanistan in the last issue and was frankly amazed. It read like something out of 'Soviet Weekly' rather than out of a paper supposedly defending democratic socialism.
Do you really believe that the Red Army was sent into Afghanistar.
page 11
Workers in basic industry, for example, tend to be concentrated in huge factories to a far greater extent than workers in other sectors of the economy. When 20,000 steelworkers are brought together in a plant, it magnifies their social weight and make: it easier for them to organise collectively.
I his aspect of the power of the industrial working class has been furthered by the historical fact that basic industry tends to be more heavily unionised than other sectors oi thi economy and has a much stronger mutant traaldon
REGIONS
Anotner point is that industral unions such as the AUEW or the NUM wield aecisive power not oniy in specue industries but also within whole regions ol ine country
During the steelworkers' strike recently, for example, all of South Wales was directly involved in one way or another. There was hardly any persor who didn't have a direct personal stake in the outcome of the strike (in terms of their job prospects).
That's why, of course, the South Wales TUC was able to call a mass strike in support of the steelworkers on January 28th which brought out over 250,000 workers. Other solidarity actions took place in other parts of the country by workers in sympathy wit! the steel strikers.
DEFENCE
Of course, there is nothing new about the strategic weight of the industrial working class, as Marx and Engels pointed out over a century ago. This weight will become increasingly important, however, in the period ahead in cetenaing une monts ano avine standard of all workers against attacks from the Thatcher government
Capitalism is no longer offering increased prosperity. Instead. we are told that growing unemployment, cutbacks in social services, lower wages and worse working conditions are necessary if British industry is to compete successibu maasloreren competitors.
This line is being pushed by governments throughout the capitalist woria, Ana lust as une crisis forces ut employers to turn on workers to bail them out. so the world working class is being forced to defend itself. Key among the working class will be the power and strength of the industrial workers.
by DAVE MCLEOD troops was a violation of the rights of the Afghan people. They were sent merely to defend the Soviet borders and to gain access to the 'warm waters' of the Indian Ocean.
While I do not support the hysterical outbursts in the Western press, I equally do not support apologetics for the Kremlin bureaucrats who gave up defending working people years ago.
Yours comradely, Steve Alderman (Brighton)
Dear Cde,
I'm glad to see that at least one paper - Socialist Action - - didn't join in the hypocritical chorus denouncing the Soviet Union for intervening in Afghanistan.
Infortunatel!, the press
Page 12 scan of this page
Which Way for ZANU?
Socialist Action
Zimbabwe:
Thé election results in Zimbabwe in early March were a stunning victory for the liberation forces. Despite the manoeuvres and intimidation organised against them, Robert Mugabe's ZANU won 63% of the vote (57 seats) which has given them a clear majority in the new Parliament.
This victory was a major set-back for the Thatcher government - & its white racist allies in Salisbury and Pretoria - who had seen the election as a last-ditch attempt to contain the growing struggle for Black independence and majority
After Smith and his 'puppet' Muzorewa had shown themselves unable to stem the growing pressure, the Lancaster House accords were clearly aimed at allowing Imperialism a chance to manoeuvre a 'safe' government into power.
WEIGHTED
From the start, the dice were clearly weighted against the Patriotic Front. Not only was the white minority guaranteed a disproportionate number of seats
anti-union moves on May 14th.
It will need more than words, however, to stop these proposals going through. What determined the defeat of Heath's Industrial Relations Act was not brave words issued from Congress House but mass action - notably that of the miners
for the March issue - however small. It all helps.
Donations received from:
MR (Sussex) £5.00
Kenny Webster
(S. London) £5.00
Steve Randell
(S. London) £1.00
Mike Rodney
(N.London) £20.00
Ralph Mak
(Chelmsford) ...€10.00
ZIMBABWEAN 'O
ALL
HAVE A RIGHT C
VO
DOWN WITH
in the new parliament (20 out of 100) and continued control over key areas of power such as the police, army and civil service.
Worse still was the fact that -during the elections themselves -the liberation fighters were expected to report to 'assembly points' while the white security forces - openly backing Muzorewa - were free to roam at will.
What this meant, in concrete terms, was a systematic intimidation of the Black population, including the murder of liberation fighters in cold blood, attempted assassination of ZANU leaders and repression of Black voters on a mass scale (as reported by the Catholic Institute for International Relations).
NEUTRAL?
Lord Soames, the British governor sent out to ensure tair play' during the elections, encouraged this intimidation of ZANU and its mass following. He himself gave permission for breaking up ZANU electoral rallies & banned ZANU candidates from running
DEFEND OUR UNIONS! cont. from page 1
- in the streets.
It is such action that is needed today and not the trips by TUC members back and forth to Downing Street to 'negotiate' with Jim Prior.
We have to make it clear to our leaders that, as far as we are concerned, none of our hard-fought
FUND DRIVE
Last month, our fund drive netted £64.50 This was quite a bit short of the previous month and means that - unless more cash comes in -we won't reach our £2000 target by the end of the year. We therefore urge all supporters and readers to send in a donation
P.B. (Birmingham)
JR (South London)
J.H. (Stoke)
Carol Cooke (Margate).
Frank Viney (Bromley) ( Liz Easton (Wimbledon)
BRITISH
SOuTH AFRICAN
TROOPS
DUT OF ZIBA
in the elections on trumped-up charges.
oeuvre into power a coalition government - possibly headed by
and less likely to act as a spur to the struggle for Black rights in neighbouring South Africa.
Even the United States - no lover of liberation movements! -felt compelled to support a UN motion moved by Black African states condemning British bias in Zimbabwe.
BREAK-THROUGH
liberation forces won such a resounding victory - despite the
defeat for Imperialist ambitions in the area. It clearly reveals the mass support for what the Tory press labelled as "isolated terrorists' and will greatly strengthen those forces in Namibia & South Africa fighting the apartheid monster there.
for rights are 'negotiable'.
CAMPAIGN
Rather than discussing with the Tories, what the TUC should be doing is preparing mass resistance to the Prior proposals. We should
proposals against trade unionists will meet mass opposition.
also not be let off the hook. Will they also agree to support mass action against Prior's attempts to curb the unions? Will they also guarantee to repeal these laws (if passed when they get back into office? £10.00 It is resolutions along these
lines that need to be urgently £4.00 ... £4.50 pushed through trade union and
Labour Party branches in the coming weeks and months. .$2.00
HANDS OFF THE UNIONS! . €2.00 MASS RESISTANCE AGAINST
TORY CURBS! •. 21.00 MAKE LABOUR PLEDGE TO
REPEAL THE ACT!
C
THREAT
The aim of these methods was crystal-clear. It was to isolate and discredit Mugabe in order to man-
Joshua Nkomo - which would be more 'pliable' to British interests
armed forces.
Undoubtedly, the fact that the
DANGERS intimidation campaign - is a major call on them to let the government know that any attempt to use these
Moreover, Labour leaders should
higher wages. of reaction.
While ZANU has won a major
victory, however, it still has a
long way to go to satisfy the asp-
irations of its mass base in the
towns and in the bush. The lib-
eration struggle was not only
for Black majority rule but for
land redistribution, the right to
a job and decent living stand-
ards for everyone.
Such gains cannot be won
without coming to grips with the
economic power structure still
concentrated in the hands of
the white 3% of the population
(and their Imperialist backers).
Until the land and industries
are taken over - and run in the
interests of the mass of people-
the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe will remain uncompleted.
What stands in the way of such moves is clearly the Rhodesian security forces - backed up by the South African military machine on the borders - who are now watching the Mugabe government with an eagle's eye.
This almost certainly explains why Mugabe, even after winning a decisive electoral victory, has gone out of his way to assure the white minority that radical policies will not be introduced. Promising that private industry will remain untouched, he has included 2 white representatives in his cabinet and appointed General Walls as overall commander of the integrated
He has also met with the South African Foreign Minister to reassure his neighbours that the government will offer no aid or sanctuary for anti-apartheid liberation fighters wishing to form bases in Zimbabwe.
Mugabe's ultra-cautious moves -playing dowr. ZANU's radical election programme - are clearly motivated by this fear of a white back-lash backed up by the armed might of the South African war machine. The 3% white minority may have lost the election, but they haven't stopped holding the Black majority to ransom yet.
However Mugabe's government opts tactically to deal with this situation in the period ahead, one thing remains clear. Sooner in. or later, the Zimbabwean people will demand that their hopes & aspirations - aroused during the long war of liberation - are met.
They will demand that the land the white settlers stole from them - and the resources they, and their Imperialist backers, have monopolised - are returned to them and used for the benefit of all people. They will demand that Black majority rule means majority rule and not the economic domination of a tiny, white minority. Indications that this is already beginning to happen van be seen in the wave ot mi. itant strikes among Blacks for
In this sense, the struggle in Zimbabwe is far from over. For us, in Britain, as the tensions develop, our central task should be camp. aigning in the labour movement to ensure that the Tory government can never again intervene in Zimbabwe to back the forces
Pete Marais
April 80
Let Anwar's
Children In!
Jenny Dodd (CAIL Sec)
Anwar Ditta was born in Birmingham and brought up in Rochdale. She went to Pakistan as a child where she grew up and had three children. In 1975 together with her husband, she returned to Rochdale - leaving her children with a grand-parent until they found work and a job.
When they sent for their children - some time later they were refused entry on the grounds that they could not prove that they were, in fact, the parents.
EVIDENCE
The fact that Anwar has clear documentarv evidence -birth certificates, medical records and photos - to show that these are her children cuts no ice with the Home Office
The reason is clear, Anwar's children are Black. While white immigrants are free to enter the country, the Tory government is prepared to use every trick in the book - even tearing families apart - to keep
BRING DITTA'S FIGHT RACIST
IMMIGRATION LAWS
LET MY
Brothersalist iN
Black people out of Britain
CAMPAIGN
Anwar's heartless treatment, however, has spurred a growing campaion against the Hom Office decision. On February the Ist, CAIL helped organised a picket of the Home Office to hand in a mass petition protesting the situation. On March 1st, several hundred people coming from as far afield as Leeds and Liverpool - marched through Rochdale calling on Raisin to let Anwar's children
Further actions are planned, included a major demonstration in Manchester on April 26th and a protest outside the Appeal Court in Manchester on April 28th when Anwar's case comes up again.*
ISOLATED
Anwar's case is not, of course, unique. She is just one victim of the racist 1971 Immigration Act. Now that Whitelaw's proposals toughening the Act still further have been passed thousands more innoceni victims will be created.
Fighting for Anwar's children to be allowed in the country is an immediate priority of anti-racists. righting to repeal the 1971 Act is also central if thou sands more Black people are not to suffer under its racist curbs
* For further information
contact: Anwar Ditta De-
fence Cttee (Rochdale 39832)
← Socialist Action (LSA) Vol. 3, No. 2, February 1980Socialist Action (LSA) Vol. 3, No. 6, June 1980 →