The reception which the Pearce Commission has received in Zimbabwe has left little doubt about the reaction of the African people to the "Settlement" arrived at behind their backs by Tory Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas Home and lan Smith, Premier of so-called Rhodesia. The Africans want none of it. They are not taken in by the specious promises of eventual equality with the whites some time in the unforeseeable future.
They have g ad reason to be sceptical. When the British Parliament granted South Africa a constitution in 1910, it also contained "entrenched clauses", "guaranteeing" the existing rights of the black people in the new DoFeeble as these rights were, they have been whittled away over the years till today none remal Zimbabwe 1 African have no reason to think that the Rhodesiar whites will honour their undertakings any more than did those in South Africa. They have seen for themselves the determination of the Smith regime to maintain and extend white domination as far'as can be seen into the future.
The extension of the vote to Africans will depend on a complicated conjunction of educational and income factors. But control of educational opportunity and economic reward will remain in the hands of the white minority. There is not the slightest possibility of the white rulers voluntarily abrogating the notorious "Land Apportionment Act". This was first passed in 1930 and laid down what farmlands should be available for Africans and whites. Originally, the Act had liberal" pretensions. It ostensibly aimed to end the period of seizure of African lands by the white settlers. In time, however, it became a bastion of racial segregation and discrimination in urban as well as rural areas. Africans coming into the towns found that they had no right to live where they liked but were confined to specific areas or to townships outside the twon proper. Since U.D.I. country's economy; thus demonstrating decisithe Land Apportionment Act has been even more rigorously enforced, mainly to enforce the closure of schools for African children run by the Churches and voluntary organisations. Thus the Smith regime tries to make sure that the Africans remain illiterate and thus unfit for the franchise.
But these "illiterates" have shown that they have both in the urban and rural areas, show that matured politically very rapidly during the past six years; despite the fact that their leaders are still locked up in Smith's concentration camps or in jail. In their thousands they have used the presence of the Pearce Commission as a rare opportunity to show that they do not want the white man's rule in any form, no matter how "liberal" the language in which it is disguised. If the Smith-Home agreement achieves nothing else, it has provided a unifying focus for the pent-up revolutionary spirit of the Africans of Zimbabwe. All the imperialist chickens are coming home to roost simultaneously. The militant strikes in Gwelo and Salisbury raised not only the issue of the future status of Zimbabwe but also economic demands long suppressed under Smith's Emergency Regulations, which made strikes illegal for African Workers. The Africans are fighting not simply on nationalistie demands but also for a greater share of the wealth which their labour produces. There can be no doubt that the Tory government, acting as the executive committee of British capitalism, would dearly love to see a "peaceful" settlement of the Rhodesian problem. Sanctions are not only damaging the Rhodesian white settler economy but also robbing important sectors of British capitalism of substantial profits. They are fearful that their more unscrupulous rivals in Japan and Germany. who have already breached the sanctions cordon, will increase these activities; a fear reinforced, no doubt, by the American decision last week to start importing Rhodesian chrome again. Large quantities of illegal' merchandise and capital investments have also been finding their way into Rhodesia from Portuguese colonial territory in neighbouring Mozambique and Angola and from the Republic of South Africa. It is these motives rather than concern for the future of Zimbabwe's Africans which inspired Home to send out Lord Goodman and later to make the journey to Salisbury himself. What makes it all the more urgent to get a settlement in Zimbabwe which will secure the interests of British imperialism is that there are growing signs that the lull in the South African sub-continent is coming to an end, threatening the future of the vast British investments there. In theneighbouringPortuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique, the guerillas have intensified their activities, tying down huge armies. Just across the border from Zimbabwe, in South West Africa, the almost complete withdrawal of the Ovambos from labour in the white-owned mines, industries and farms has paralysed the vely the specious nature of the white man's claim that it is the European who has built up the wealth of South Africa.
Whatever illusions the Africans may have retained in British fair play' have now been shattered once and for all. The mass demonstrations against the Smith-Home settlement, they are now relying only on their own strength and are determined to fight. They must not be allowed to fight in vain or alone. International solidarity is as important for the Zimbabwe people as for the Vietnamese and the Irish. It is one fight, against the common enemy-imperialism.
C. Van Gelderen
* Zimbabwe is the name Africans have chosen in preference to the imperialist imposed "Rhodesia."
socialist woman The first national conference of the Socialist Woman Groups, held at Imperial College, London on 29/30 January, marked a major step forward for the women's liberation movement in this country. It represented the first substantial measure of agreement between a number of women's groups on an overall political position, aims and priorities for women's liberation, and laid the basis for a national campaign round one of these priorities at the present time-for Equal Pay and Equal Work, and an end to low pay. Over 100 delegates and members from the 20 Socialist Woman Groups and supporters of the paper attended the conference, which was called by the editorial board of Socialist Woman to discuss the experience of the groups so far and plan for closer coordination of ideas and activities in the future. Representaties had been sent by groups in Birmingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Cardiff. Colchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Keele, Lancaster, Leeds, Leicester, Norwich, Nottingham, Preston, Reading, Rickmansworth, Sheffield and York, as well as many sympathisers from areas where Socialst Woman Groups have not yet been set up. The conference had been planned around papers commissioned at a meeting of Socialist Woman supporters at the Skegness women's conference to tackle the various problems confronting the women's movement at the present time and its need for an adequate Marxist analysis. Different comrades dealt with The women's liberation movement in its historical context, "Women's liberation and revolutionary socialism', The economic background to the women's movement", and Women and capitalism-and our priorities now. Although full agreement was reached on none of these, and there is clearly still a lot of work to be done in defining the place of women's liberation in the fight for a socialist society, this is hardly surprising, given the historical inertia, not to say resistance, of the left in Britain and inter. nationally on the subject, and the confusion in the women's liberation movement resulting from the newness of women's radicalisation and the peculiar nature of their oppression. But even without this qualification, a good start was made at the Conference in sketching the outlines of the continuing and future discussion.
Immediate practical questions raised by the activities of the Socialist Woman Groups were also discussed-the Preston group talked about the rent campaign they had organised locally and its effects in extending the consciousness of the women involved in it; groups working in solidarity with the miners discussed the possibility of coordinating their activity across the country; and the subject of the Women's Industrial Union organised by Mrs.
Pat Sturdy, who attended the conference, particularly provoked discussion on several counts: what a "women-only' union implied, whether it was really more of an attempt to bypass the union bureaucracies and craft divisions by setting up a breakaway, all-embracing, democratic union in the tradition of the Wobblies, and what were the possibilites of directing these energies against the bureaucracy inside the union structure. The trade union panel,which included May Hobbs of the Cleaners Action Group, Vicky Robinson of the UPW and Joan Gilbert of the National Union of Gold & Silver Smiths & Allied Trades contributed to this discussion with practical insights from their own experience.
Other guest speakers from outside the Socialist Woman Groups also introduced important points into the discussionAlthea Jones of the Black Panthers spoke on the need for oppressed groups to organise separately and sketched the historical oppression of Black women; Rosemary Sales of the Irish Solidarity Campaign discussed the role of women in national liberation struggles; and Lóne Sorensen from the Danish section of the Fourth International talked about the problems of the women's liberation movement,which was extremely feminist, in Denmark and the need to build Socialist Woman Groups which had met with a favourable response from women trade unionists The last session of the Conference was taken up with discussing the political basis and co-ordination of the Socialist Woman Groups. After some discussion, delegates voted overwhelmingly to accept a statement of common political position and aims, which stressed the interrelationship of the process of socialist revolution and women's liberation, showed the need for women's self-organisation as part of this process, gave priority to the struggles of working class women and put forward the demands of the Socialist Woman Groups towards women's liberation and socialism. It was agreed that this would become the national manifesto of the Socialist Woman Groups, and that the discussion would be continued in the local groups. The groups undertook to put into practice the agreement reached in theory by launching a national campaign coordinated between them and directed against the most crucial contradiction in women's position at the present time: for Equal Pay and Equal Work, against low pay. The conference finally elected an editorial board, voted on arrangements for closer coordination between the paper Socialist Woman and the groups, and concluded by passing a resolution in support of Angela Davis and calling on the local groups to organise demonstrations in solidarity. The fact that this was the first Conference of the Socialist Woman Groups ever called and the size of the response meant that lack of time inevitably prevented some of the most important questions raised from being fully thrashed out. But the main achievement of the conference was to establish a political and organisational framework within which a discussion has been opened and will be continued between the Socialist Woman Groups and through the paper Socialist Woman.
-Marilyn Scotcher Comrades who would like more information about Socialist Woman, or who would like a subscription to the paper (48p per year-6 issues) should write to SOCIALIST WOMAN, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.I. n.u.s. conference The special conferenceof the National Union of Students held in London over the weekend 29/30 January, witnessed the first fruits of the campaign led by the LCDSU to change the policies of the NUS leadership. On both of the major issues of conference, the Liaison Committee, rarely mentioned but on everyone's lips, was the determining influence. This was reflected in the NUS executive's own motions as much as those directly inspired by the LCDSU.
The proposals on the fight back against the government's attack on Students Unions provided the clearest setback to the CP leadership of the NUS. The findamental basis of the executive campaign was completely rejected-not, however, before the debate had revealed that the executive itself was split on the question. A motion backed by all the militant colleges supporting the LCDSU (and some others) was passed against the executive motion. This demanded full political, constitutional and financial autonomy for Student Unions and tied up the loopholes which the executive had used over the Christmas period as an excuse for negotiating with the government-this last was completely rejected. As executive member Roger Haworth put it, "To negotiate about the autonomy of Student Unions is equivalent to a man about to be hanged negotiating about the quality of the rope". A motion put later, censuring the executive for taking part in negotiations, was narrowly defeated. A test vote showed only seven votes difference and a card vote narrowed this majority to 4000 votes, that is, to one college strength. Several other amendments from the LCDSU spelling out and strengthening this policy were however defeated, but always only narrowly. Part of this is to be explained by the realisation by many of the moderate colleges that this was not just a debate about policy but more fundamentally about the very basis of the NUS as a Students Union. At the same time the machinations of the CP behind the scenes nlaved a not unimbortant role. This went on up to the very end of the conference when an attempt was made to re-vote on the LCDSU amendment-a completely unconstitutional procedure, which therefore backfired on them. Having raised the moderates on constitutionalism, the CP just couldn't turn on them in this way without upsetting many people.
IRELAND AND THE NUS The conference was far from confined, of course, to student issues. As the LCDSU has always argued, student issues, and in particular that of the attack on their autonomy. cannot be confined to, and certainly cannot be won by focussing on the "immediate issue. Only a broader perspective, and broader action, can have any hope of success. So not only was the conference suffused by the attitude of students to the miners strike, but the question of Ireland reproduced the political differences over the question of autonomy. Not only were the executive split on this one, however, but so was the CP itself. The executive motion was a 180° turn from last conference. The motion passed there was so right wing that the Anti-Internment League kicked them out. The call this time for support to the IRA, even though limited to the taking of defensive actions, indicated the sort of pressure which was being felt. Given this situation, the two amendments put by supporters of the LCDSU giving unconditional support to the IRA were defeated, but not before an emergency motion condemning the Lynch government for its arrest of seven alleged IRA men was overwhelmingly passed.
THE FUTURE Given all this, however, what was important was not so much the motions passed but the psychological situation which was established by the depth of the opposition to the politics of the NUS executive. The LCDSU can now use this conference as a spring board to hammer home the political lessons for next conference. It is quite certain that the NUS will, from now on, be very different than the CP architects would have had it. It is slowly becoming clear that the LCDSU policy is the only alternative to the government proposals. The middie ground is gradually being eroded. Out of this battle either we will see emerge the scab "company' Union of the DES, whatever the specific proposals adopted, or the NUS will have to transform itself into the vanguard of the politicised students. Easter conference will be the next vital piece of litmus which will indicate the sort of future we can expect. If the militants in the colleges continue to put some of their energies into this campaign, the victory can be ours.
-J.R. Clynes lessons of l.s.e.
The occupation of the London School of Economics on the weekend of 22/23 January was called by the students' union for two basic reasons: to provide a base for contingents from outside London for the NUS demo on the Sunday; and as a blow against Adams' rejection of the new constitution designed by the union to give it autonomy from the establishment of the School. The libertarians in Soc-Soc, however, intended to use the occasion for an experience in alternative The motion for the occupation (to last from Friday to Monday) was carried in the Union by 270 votes to 40. When Adams went on the offensive by cutting off the union phones and money, it was decided to start the occupation with a token force on the Thursday. By Friday some 300 people were occupying LSE: by Saturday 600. Most of these, however, were from outside the School. A series of activities was announced by the union council; on the Saturday these consisted mostly of alternative education' classes-radical' psychology etc.-No political meetings were organised by the Soc-Soc (whose leadership is also largely the Union leadership), and only two mass meetings of the occupants held. At the first of these, attempts to raise political discussion about the perspectives of the occupation were resisted: at the second, partly no doubt because of the presence of militant outside contingents, there was at least discussion resulting in a decision to join the Liaison Committee march on the Sunday. The main part of the Saturday evening had been devoted by the union leadership to a freak-out that bored more than it freaked. The Spartacus League, like other tendencies, found itself obliged to hold its own political meetings.
After the Sunday NUS demo, when the official LSE contingent finally decided not to join the LCDSU march to the Coal Board, the occupation virtually collapsed. Only some 50 students were left on Sunday night, but these did decide to go on and occupy the Senior Common Room. The next day, Monday, though the School was allowed to return to "normal activity, the SCR was opened to everyone and an Irist teach-in held there in the afternoon. The decision to end the occupation was taken that afternoon in a union assembly-which naturally included even the opponents of the occupation.
The lessons for the LSE comrades are quite clear. It was not by accident that the occupation failed to attract sufficient support within the LSE itself: it was never posed as a struggle by the union leadership. Adams' attack, even if he is now forced to make a partial withdrawal, is symptomatic of the politics of college authorities which may tak their distance from the Tory government over the proposed Thatcher legislation, and may make the usual noises about academic freedom and autonomy: but they will use Thatcher's temporary withdrawal to bring in equally reactionary forms of control over student activity. Instea' of fighting on a clear understanding of this, the liber tarians in the LSE leadership viewed the weekend's experience. as an astract exercise in "consciousness raisino'-as if consciousness was raised by de mere fact of being togeth and as if raised consciousness was something to be taken away and stored up for some remote future stuggle. The failure to understand the real nature of Adams' attack on th LSE, and the individualistic-chauvinist unwillingness to co-operate fully with LCD also meant that the many students visiting LSE from elsewhere were not informed of the situation in LSE, and no effective solida action could even be contemplated. A valuable occasion for extending the struggle against the college administrations was lost. More than one student arriving on the steps of LSE and asking where is it all happening had to conclude that it wasn't.
The alternative to a miserable occupation of this sort isn't to avoid having occupations, or to take students out of the student struggle. As argued elsewhere in The Red Mole it is to understand how struggle in the colleges can inflict blows on the bourgeoisie and how students as a body can act in wider political struggles. This requires not libertar ianism but a marxist analysis, and seric s organisation. A further demonstration of the great potential but actual weakness of the LSE students, came on the Monday following the Derry massacre. The union leadership took the excellent initiative of calling for a demonstration against parliament. But by refusing to organise or to co-ordinate with other forces, they led the demonstration into considerabl confusion after meeting heavy police resista in the Strand-a confusion reflected in the fact that on arrival at Westminster the demo stration disintegrated without a meeting, an several students were seen wandering off in the direction of the lobbies. Three students were arrested at this demonstration when police barred the Strand.
In all the activity of the coming days in LSE, LSE students must organise the defence of these comrades, and in their political meetings discuss how to organise to avoid this kind of blow. The picketing of the power stations, above all participatin in the demonstrations in solidarity with the Irish struggle, must go on; but to draw more students into this activity, to defend their own comrades, and to be able at the same time to carry on the struggle within the college, we need open political discussion and a clearer political perspective for militant students.
-LSE Spartacus Li