(The following interview with Alan Jones, a member of the Political Bureau of the International Marxist Group, British section of the Fourth International, was obtained in London May 3. We have taken the text from the May 13 issue of Inprecor a fortnightly news bulletin published by the United Secretariat of the Fourth International.]
Question. What is the economic background to the current wage negotiations between the government and the TUC (Trades Union Congress)?
Answer. The most important point is the collapse of profits during the past few years, especially 1973-75. Between 1963 and 1973 the rate of profit in British industry fell by 50 percent, and between 1973 and 1975 it fell by half again. In spite of the economic crisis this produced, until the winter of 1974-75 the working class managed to maintain its standard of living, which went up 8 percent during the year following the fall of the Heath government in autumn 1973.
The economic situation remains disastrous for the bourgeoisie despite the fact that since the important defeat of the working class in summer 1975 the standard of living has fallen 6 percent and unemployment has risen to 1,250,000 without any serious working-class resistance. For the first quarter of 1976, for example, profits in real terms were half of what they were in 1964. There are now recommendations for a 3 percent cut in workers' living standards by means of limits on wage increases and another 5 percent cut by means of tax charges-and still without any improvement in the economic situation for the bourgeoisie. The rate of inflation would remain about 10-12 percent a year and unemployment would not drop below 1 million. The rate of profit would still be lower than the 1973 level. Despite the fact that industrial production will rise slightly, there is no fundamental improvement in the basic situation. Any serious class offensive would throw the economy into the worst crisis since the 1930s. And the bourgeoisie will have to continue its attacks against the working class simply to try to stabilize the situation temporarily.
Q. What about the political background to Wilson's resignation?
A. In spite of the economic crisis, the political parties of the ruling class are unable to engage in any serious direct test of strength with the working class of the type Heath attempted from 1970 to 1973 These parties are weakened by the crisis in northern Ireland, the rise of the Scottish Nationalist party (which reflects the division in the ruling class itself, and the fact that since the fall of the Heath government no section of the ruling class is confident about the results of a test of strength with the well-organized sections of the working class. In this situation, the ruling class has placed all its hopes in the Labour bureaucracy. Since the summer of 1975, with the introduction of wage controls, this bureaucracy has been carrying out an offensive against the working class, and the combination of this and the depth of the economic crisis has undoubtedly created confusion and disorientation within the working class. For example, in the nine months since the imposition of wage controls, the number of strike days has fallen to the lowest level since 1958. Among some sections of the working class-construction workers, dockers,
Chrysler workers-there have been serious defeats as a result of unemployment, bureaucratic repression, and combinations of the two.
But in spite of these setbacks, there are no signs of qualitative defeats of the working class as a whole. People are not leaving the unions; the factory leaderships established during 1968-74 remain intact. Attacks on the trade unions still meet very strong resistance. And since winter 1975- 76, there have been slow but sure signs of a new working-class recovery since summer 1975. Last November 26, for example, 20,000 people demonstrated in London against unemployment despite the opposition of the TUC; last March 3,000 delegates attended a conference in London on unemployment called by the Communist party and the left Social Democrats.
In past weeks there have been seven or eight strikes in the motor industry around wages, working conditions, and so on. There have also been eight strikes around the question of equal pay for women during past weeks and a one-day general strike in Dundee in Scotland against social-service cuts. This recovery has also been reflected, in a bureaucratic fashion, in somewhat more activity by the left Social Democrats. In the week before Wilson resigned, for example, thirty-seven Labour MPs abstained in a House of Commons vote on a bill to cut social services; the bill was consequently defeated, at least temporarily. The left Social Democrats have also taken a new own program, to the extent that they do find themselves clashing with government policy.
Wilson's resignation was undoubtedly a maneuver, an attempt to head off a new rise of opposition to government policy by putting himself in position to play a indistian tod playa somewhat more partist role, to give the government more protection from attacks from the left. Outside the government Wilson can make demagogic appeals for the unity of the Labour party; inside the government, Callaghan is his handpicked successor.
Q. What are the government's prospects?
A. A decisive change occurred in the summer of 1975. Until that summer, the Wilson government had attempted to "balance" between the classes, aiding the strategic policy of the ruling class but granting certain short-term concessions to the workers, such as an 8 percent increase in wages, freezes on rents, increased pensions. One of the reasons not to attack the working class, apart from the relationship of forces after the fall of Heath, was the referendum on British membership in the Common Market. Since the referendum (June 1975), the government has waged an uninterrupted series of attacks on the workers. The present government represents a very marginal shift to the right in the bureaucracy, but essentially it is unchanged since summer 1975.
The prospects of this government completely depend on the response of the workers. The trade-union bureaucracy will almost certainly succeed in getting the unions to accept the new round of wage controls. But there is a much larger and conscious minority in the trade unions more clearly opposed to the wage controls now than there was last time.
Furthermore, the government's economic policy-which promises to achieve the wage controls, reduce inflation to 5 percent a year, and reduce unemployment to 700,000 by 1979—cannot possibly succeed. The danger for the government is that the minority in the trade unions opposed to the wage controls will link up with mounting working-class opposition to the effects of the government policy. If this occurred, it would create a massive crisis in the mass organizations of the working class. Thus, to counter this danger, the bureaucracy is trying to stamp out any resistance of any kind to its policy. For example, a rule has been introduced into the trade-union councils forbidding any activity contrary to the policy of the Labour party and the TUC. Each of the strikes in the motor industry led to a direct intervention of the top bureaucracy against the struggle. At the Scottish TUC Jack Jones, leader of the 1,750,000-member Transport and General Workers Union, personally intervened against a resolution submitted by one trade council critical of the Labour government. It was like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. But at the moment, the ruling class does not appear to believe that the bureaucracy can control the situation, despite these measures. For the first time in a year, there is discussion in the ruling class press about the desirability of re moving the government, hoping that the combination of wage controls and severe Labour electoral defeats would demoralize and contain the workers.
As for our analysis, we expect a slow but steady rise in the struggles of the workers. The government may fall, perhaps in the winter or spring, amid the increasing indifference and hostility of both classes.
Q. What has been the reaction of the left Social Democrats and the CP?
A. The left Social Democrats increased their weight in the Labour party during the period of working-class struggles from 1968 to 1974. This was reflected in the rise of Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who advocated economic policies based on reflation of the economy, selective nationalizations, planning agreements (investment policies by the government and the capitalists), and workers' participation in industry. An economic policy somewhat similar to that of the Union de la Gauche in France.
Of course, this rise of the left Social Democrats was a bureaucratic reflection of the struggle of the working class from 1968 to 1974. But with the defeat of the working class since the summer of 1975 and a new consensus among the ruling class and the bureaucracy, this current has gone into retreat. Benn was removed from a central post in the government and sections of the left Social Democratic program (which had been put in Labour's Election Manifesto) were removed from it.
But the Benn current retains the support of Labour party activists. For example, at the last conference Benn received by far the highest vote for the party Executive, and the lefts still control the main policyplanning committees of the party. With a new upturn in workers struggles, these forces can be expected to step up their activity somewhat, while avoiding a clear break with the trade-union bureaucracy, which continues to support the government. The perspective for the Bennites is almost certainly that the government will fall in a discrediting manner and then they can make a bid for the leadership of the party.
In practice, the policy of the CP is to attempt to put pressure on the left Social Democracy to play a slightly more active role. But this is bankrupt, since the Bennites are interested in the struggle for the leadership of the Labour party and not
9261 '2 eunr in a fight against the trade-union bureaucracy.
What perspectives are put forward
Q.
by the IMG?
A. Our perspectives are to try to centralize the rising working-class struggle against the government and to give it an
сорой
HAROLD WILSON
adequate programmatic base. This means a central campaign around the sliding scale of wages, nationalization of firms threatening redundancies, rejection of cuts in social services, campaign for a program of public works, etc. The perspective advanced by our organization is the centralization of all those forces prepared to fight against government policies into a class-struggle left wing in the labor movement. This means an axis of united actions not merely with vanguard forces, but also with those left Social Democratic workers (and in certain cases CP members) who are prepared to fight against government policies. This fight involves a head-on confrontation with the central sections of the trade-union and Labour party bureaucracy and a continued demand that the Bennites define their positions on the struggles of the workers. On the issues of unemployment, cuts, and wages the struggle remains at a relatively fragmented level. But we have been able to intervene and carry out solidarity with some of these struggles. For example, our comrades were involved in a successful occupation at the Cromwell Smelters Factory in Southwest England and at the Personna firm in Glasgow. We also participated in the national demonstration against unemployment called by the CP last November 26 and we are building the Day of Action on
Unemployment and Cuts on May 26.
This fight against government policies meets such direct resistance from the bureaucracy and the potential for crisis in the mass organizations is so clear that the fight has a logic of transforming itself into a struggle around the leadership of the workers organizations, both locally and later nationally.
The perspective we see for the coming months is to attempt to develop all forms of resistance to government policy and to prepare for the crisis within the mass organizations that will accompany any rise in working-class struggles and will assume an explosive form if the government does fall. This means lending priority to work in the trade unions and increasing the number of people in the Labour party and in the Labour party Young Socialists who support the policy of the IMG and would be members of the IMG were it not for the reactionary rule that prevents them from joining the IMG and remaining in the Labour party or Labour Young Socialists.
The major successes we have registered in moving toward a more centralized response have been in the struggle against cuts in the Health Service, where we have been able to form a united front with left Social Democrats and centrist forces which has established a real presence in relation to this fight. On the question of abortion and the Campaign for the Working Women's Charter, the National Abortion Campaign has held two demonstrations of 30,000 and 15,000 in London and the work around the working women's charter has established about thirty local groups.
Former Japanese Prisoner
Sues for Damage to Health
Yuji Kondo, a former member of the Japanese Red Army (Sekigun), filed a damage suit for 50 million yen (about US$166,000) against the Japanese government May 21, demanding compensation for the deterioration of his health while he was in prison.
Kondo was convicted of holding up a bank in Yonago to raise money for the group. He was imprisoned from August 1971 to October 1974.
Kondo said that his prison cell had no sunlight or fresh air and that it was extremely humid. He began to feel pain in his legs shortly after entering prison, but his appeals for medical attention were ignored. He also asked for parole in 1972 and 1973 and was turned down both times.
His condition deteriorated and he was later diagnosed as suffering from polyneuritis. After doctors said that he would be unable to withstand continued prison life, he was released. By that time, however, the damage to his health was permanent and the Nara Prefectural government officially designated him as a handicapped person.