you are seriously decerving people if there is revolutionist talk.
hen only a minority of peop!
1 this country have got hold o a socialist analysis.
They get it through action and struggle, that is not the same as telling other people to go into the battle to replace the electoral could seld in the hope build socialism vou'd end up with Stalinism.
You mentioned that the next Labour government elected radical programme should attempt to fulfill the 1974 Manifesto, including a fundamental shift of power and wealth to working peo. ple and their families. Surely this is going to put you in bass fance houses thr conflict midsorve and so on. And although we can see the ooint that vou will need massive popular Sur....
You sure will.
Surely you will need something else well, which is your hands on the actual the money, the finance the monopolies, the key levers from that point of view? In other words, surely the first step is to take these things over?
Then you've got to argue abour the pólicy of the Labour Party. I!'s no good me saying thai it's gol to be that way, l've got to persuade the Labour Partv. But you yourself stand for But I support Clause 4. I think that the process by which you bring rabout Clause 4 has to be first ol all the persuasion of the Party ot ine relevance ot socialism. and for thirty years no one has taikec abour sociansia On the whole I think socialist loeas are probably stronger now, a lot of socialist agitation has gone on in ine country over the last few years.
The experience of office will create the demand for radical change, and if you say, and l Sihink you're righi, that the in*e ternational financial community might try to bring enormous : pressure upon a treshly elected Labour government. you then "If you're saying this is the Allende question....! call that revolutionist tittle tattle' have to rely on the support of Tne race antols. Party and the public who voted the Labour O vOu.
But if you're saying that this is the Allende question, then I wouldn't be bothering about any of this policy making I would be out in the fields at night drilling. I call that revolutionist tittle tattle.
If one abandons persuasion for the pursuit of arms then you're talking about a different ball-game.
The difficulty for socialist analysts is this: they have to analyse where power is the banks, landowners, military, civil service.
multinationals, Brussels.
But you mustn't use their analysis of the centres of power on the other side as an instrument for spreading pessimism ana nopelessiess allong peoOn the contrary...
..because actually there is ihe power to win, of course there's the power to win.
Socialist Challenge 4 June 1981 But let's take that point. It major battle for the Was d 1945-51 Labour government to nationalise steel. It was a big major battle that was lost even to nationalise the Tate and Lyle sugar company.
Is it not the case that taking over sections commanding heights of industry and finance, plement your progamme, is going to put vou gerheads people?
think le ls. butl mnik d ucielmined government with public support can carry the day. there was an attempt military coup against a military government trying to do what it was elected to do, then I think the case for industrial action io democracy overwhelming.
This whole argument - are vou a reformist tionary, are you parlamentary extra-parlamentary highly theoretical area. very little real meaning.
Whai is presented as revolutionary is really, I think, a critique not of reform having been tried and tailed, but retorm not having been tried.
surely the ditterence between being Ilonary Terorist that the think that a test of strength between which genuinely wants to caruld carreforms what e through call revolutionary measures, and the capitalist class, is inevitable and that capitalist class wont give power, monopolies, the houses and the banks...
....without violence ...without violence, without attempting to use its state apparatus.
I'm not sure about that. Wasn't Marx who said that the the United Kingdom was one counWICI C you about socialism by means? media, Only to reverse it later.
Maybe, but that was and think siare. evitability of violence which is really what you're saying, 1l i believed it, and 1 moment, u wouia icau me lo abandon politics and get out my old tin hat and find a second hand rifie and go out and drill.
If you did that you would to Im al log those Bai would be a revolurevolurevolutionaries enormously rent. a woulan l government but it would be serious enough to frighten people. you Il would ( Party from their real task. Where the the trade union movement is very Sulg, played a part, not in destroying the big finance the government great mistake that the far left and the Tories both make was the defeated Heath, were not prepared to back him in a conflici with the British working class movement Teat na wda blie clę ion, do you imagine the miner: would have been Poe cectoral arce s i is electoral might bring brought Heath down.
peaceful The election of Mitterand in France is tremendously encouraging. One of the things which he's promised is the immediate introduction of a 35-hour week. the in- Cov n hee wee a 35-hour don't for a don't you think would again conflict with the bosses Well let's be clear. Everything that we wanted to do ín our strengthen the into conflici be serious. lagon, the bankers, divert the Labour can take that for read.
as you said before, this is British neople who ine pressere because they snarne. the dominant of great importance.
La strong zowetlicll process which anything, haven't the manifesto. demoracy. much be implemented week, that this put you important point of unemployment, import imply an with Washington, vectons of the civil service and so on, so you fudged it in the "79 manifesto; we said we were in favour of a 35-hour week but it Britain would have lo be on a turopean scale, which was another way of saying that we wouldn't do it unless other people did.
CHOW
shorter working week, for work as an element - not element dealing with unemployment is can't I couldn't tell you with any abroad. authority what the next Labour will do about because SO far succeeded in dealing problem That's why we're spending port time on party Until we've sorted inat out tere is no kaowicuge until three weeks before polling SUCN a way day what commitment there is. rises. and there's no certainty that what commitment there is will ment.
French For us, the 35-hour week is both the view of solving and also as a means of driving against Led contro/s, which alliance between sections of the trade unions and the employers.
I don't think that import controls would solve the crists all 110/i C than devaluation or wage controls have never said so. . But I don't find any socialist theory which leads me to the belief that the free movement of goods and capital is an integral part of in. ternational socialism.
We have import controls at the moment - a poor persor afford buy And the planning of trade, and production seems to be perfectly logical The left critique of import controls, which I fully understand because I'm an internahonansl - lat you use loca your unemployment, ie lr dsem tirel onto trade dn If you plan your trade that you return to ritts. Mut it ment, Bút you do it in such a unemployyou are damasing the or the Japanese or the Sorih African workine cias:
If you have nationalised incontrol WI WU AC1 and compensation according to need, some multinational company can bring in cheap goods to destroy that industry under the guise of free trade - and when it's been destroyed it can Tase c azal Surely context that you're talking about is one wnere mere is oeneranse workers' contro. a plann economy while context in which many of mne race unon teasers ane many of the leaders of the CBI are raising the demand is quite different.
case let's talk abou what in talking about, noi take the view thal profection will solve the crisi, Some of the critique of the roi: oftrade planning in the Labou: socialist scems as il it's just what the CBI might argue, but il's noi One of the points in the five point programme you have put forward for vo rele.
tion campaign is the idea that we should not accep Cruise or Trident missiles and that we should have a non-nuclear policy.
This implies that should stay NATO. Do you support the resolutior carried at the ASTMS con ference that Britain shouto withdraw from NATO.
I am basing myscif on co:
ference polcy. I he conterenrejecied request ica NATO, but said that we shou have a non-nuclear policy, ln:
Canada's. That is à perfect possible position. The Labol' Party's present positior VATO is that we should aim dissolve the alliance and tr.:
Warsaw Pact and create European security system.
I don't think that nucle:
weapons are really a defent:
strategy. The Tories destroying the navy to produ:
the Trident , so we are seeir.
detence reduced order produce a weapon which cou used without neve destruction of our country think the non-nuclear defen:= strategy and perfectly logical position.
Maybe the Labour Par will go beyond it and say !
should leave NATO. I think i unlikely, because there are a !
of people of my age-group w:
DTP-WA when the altempt by the lett fascion led io the altenipt collective security again maintain the League of Natio:
and all the rest of it.
generation couldr possibly sit back and wharever happens anywhe else doesn't concern more.
port.
to policy. I didn't make much of it publicly , but I put it forward in the Shadow Cabinet and in the stage man was dving, it didn't seen me to offer anything im mediately, but it did highlight the fact that the British policy was lolailv Induculale We say to them you can't shoot. You shouldn't starve yourself death You
----- pull-quotes -----
'It was the electoral process which brought Heath down' - above: the miners' picket at Saltley Gate
WALDUS PUCE LINE manifesto in goingh o be nen-