It is still too early at the time of writing to know the real tactical and strategic importance of the offensive that the Indochinese revolutionary forces have launched. What is already clear, however, is that attacks have been carried out with powerful forces not only south of the 17th Parallel, in the Quang-Tri area, but also in the Central Highlands, in the provinces of Kontum and Pleiku, as well as nearer Saigon, in the province of Tay Ninh, and also in the Mekong delta.
Once more the joint American-puppet High Commandthough expecting such an attack-seems surprised by the size of the forces involved, and even more so by the extent of their deployment. But this time the surprise is the reverse of what it was at the time of the Tet offensive in 1968.
At that time, the joint American and South Vietnamese deployment was based on concentration, in large units and in powerfully protected bases. In that way, the NEF forces were able to control the countryside, get an implantation in it without large-scale resistance, and from it were able to prepare-besides a few spectacular central actions. an offensive consisting of hundreds of different guerrilla operations. For many reasons (including the lessons of '68), the imperialist war machine has been seriously modified since then. Four fifths of the U.S. active service units have left Vietnam. The logistic support to the puppet forces lies exclusively-since the ground troops cannot or do not want to fight-in the air. The puppet army must itself patrol the countryside, carrying out raids, and forcing the population to regroup in concentration camps or in the towns. In this way, they become vulnerable to the present concentrated actions, supported it would seem by heavy and semi-heavy weaponry of a classic but seemingly widely used type.
This is the price that must be paid for "Vietnamisation". All the more so as the operations in Laos a year ago exposed the weak operational value of the big puppet units even the so-called elite ones-when they are facing equivalent revolutionary forces.
One can also foresee without much trouble that these oper ations in Vietnam will be followed very soon by important operations in Laos and Cambodia. It is difficult to seeespecially in Cambodia-how the local puppets, already severely tried, are going to be able to put up any effective resistance to the forces of the FUNK without the support of the Saigon troops, who are now involved elsewhere.
If one wants to try to evaluate the general situtation, a number of factors have to be taken into account:
1. THE POSSIBILITY OF RESISTANCE BY THE PUPPET FORCES On a purely tactical level, the behaviour of the Saigon forces is of course important to determine, since both south of the 17th Parallel and in the Central Highlands there are no more U.S. ground forces and the puppets are alone. The extent of the successes of the revolutionary forces will depend -it is obvious-on their capacity to resist.
In the long term, it is the whole policy of "Vietnamisation"
which is at stake. If the puppets, especially their best units, collapse and allow big gaps to appear on the fronts where VIETNAM:
the revolutionary forces are engaged, then the entire Nixon plan could rapidly collapse. The gamble on the (now effective) withdrawal of the ground troops was based on a confidence -entirely relative and dependent on the air support -in the development of the combative capacities, of the morale, and of the social support of the puppets. But a total collapse is not very likely. To think that the revolutionary forces are going to converge towards Saigon and liberate at a go the whole of the Indochinese peninsula is totally utopian. And the Vietnamese comrades have often warned against such illusions. The recent declarations of Colonel Ha-Van-Lau to the New York Times show this very clearly. But even a limited tactical success for the Indochinese revolutionaries would assume at the present time a considerable significance. 2. THE PLACE OF THE SPRING OFFENSIVE IN THE OVERALL STRATEGY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY FORCES It seems very clear. The game played by Nixon is to erase the Indochina war by insisting only on its "consequences (campaign on the prisoners, etc.). The war is finished since the grolind troops are coming back home, since the American losses have diminished almost to the point of disappearing, since "Vietnamisation" has been a "success", since the leaders of the workers* states, even those who were denouncing Nixon most violently, receive him, negotiate with him, and talk hardly or not at all about the war. The war is de facto' finished, and it is no longer necessary even to maintain the fiction of the Paris "peace-talks", the holding and regular sessions of which were intended to give the deliberate impression that American imperialism had someting to negotiate. Of course, the Indochinese Revolutionary Front is attempting to demonstrate the contrary and this is whyin passing- - we must protest with our Indochinese comrades against the suspension of the talks. The battlefield and the diplomatic struggle are one and the same front. In the same way as the Tet offensive of "68 sounded the death toll of one particular U.S. strategy in Indochina, the April 72 offensive could very well throw into question the whole "Vietnamisation" policy, or at least certain important aspects of it.
It is going to be difficult for Nixon to continue to deny the continued existence of the war. It is going to be even more difficult for him to withdraw another 30,000 men between now and the summer.
Moreover, the new operations are a striking proof of the determination of the Indochinese revolutionaries not to accept any "freezing" of the situation, any "Geneva' where their independence and their freedom of action would be subject to bargaining.
In this respect, the date of the offensive is instructive. We do not think that it is only for meteorological reasons that the U.S. air force is reluctant to leave the ground. It takes place right in the middle of Nixon's two trips: to Peking and to Moscow. Once more, our Vietnamese comrades have kept an equal balance in their relations with the two big workers' states, even to reminding them of the continuing aggression of U.S. imperialism in Indochina.
But the reminder that no settlement reached around the negotiating table will count for much without the agreement of those fighting on the ground comes at a very opportune moment. It is a stinging indictment of all those who were suggesting - wishful thinking, perhaps-that everything was settled in Indochina, and that behind the suspension of the Paris talks secret contact was being maintained which would settle what remained to be settled. 3. THE U.S. REACTION If, as some correspondents maintain, the vigour and extent of the Vietnamese offensive has taken the U.S. high command and its puppets by surprise, it is very likely that they had already planned their methods of counter-attack and escalation in the event of such a situation.
Of course, Nixon is faced with a serious problem. By continuing to evacuate U.S. ground forces from Indochina, he aggravates the local relationship of forces which is not at troops can be affected, not to mention that of the U.S. all favourable to him in any case. The morale of the puppet troops still present. But can he stop this evacuation or even reverse the trend and bring back elite service units? It is very unlikely in this election year, when he has gambled heavily on a 'pacifist' image to return him for another four years. Already in the States it seems that the euphoria of the silent majority is giving way to much anxiety. There is therefore one and only one possibility: the use of air power and eventually the resumption of massive bombing raids against the North. Obviously the U.S. military command have been preparing for this for some months. The arrival of new B-52 bombers, and the recent arrival of two new aircraft-carriers show clearly that this eventuality has been planned for and that the imperialists have given themselves the means to carry it out. It seems that the puppets are evacuating the population of Quang-Tri, south of the 17th Parallel. Maybe one should see in this the moment of realisation of an old plan which dates back to '68 and the days of MacNamara: the creation, by every means possible, of a dead zone on both sides of the 17th Parallel. SOLIDARITY Revolutionary marxists, however, are not taken aback by these developments in the situation in Indochina. For many months now the Fourth International has been stressing the need for international mobilisations this spring, in response to a situation which was known to be reaching boiling point. In particular, in the U.S. through the National Peace Action Coalition and in France through the Indochina Solidarity Front, our comrades have taken the lead in mobilising on a large scale for the International Day of Solidarity on 22 April, realising that the spring of 1972 would be an important period in the developing Indochinese revolution. In Britain what we can do is relatively small, both because of the lack of internationalism of most left groups and also because for us the major task must be the building of a solidarity campaign in support of the struggle of the Irish people against our own ruling class. However, it remains as necessary as ever to take even limited actions, as is happening in both Glasgow and London on 22 April, in support of the struggle of the Indochinese people; and it will remain necessary for as long as that struggle retains its central importance in the process of world revolution today.
So far 20 factories have been occupied by workers in the engineering industry in the Manchester area, in pursuit of a claim for improvements in pay and conditions submitted last January by stewards throughout the district. As is well known, the engineering industry has - with the exception of the car industrybeen severely depressed for the past fifteen months or so. This is because there is little demand for capital goods either in the domestic or in most foreign markets. Consequently, there has been relatively little overtime, many plants have been working short time, and as everyone knows there have been big redundancies. By and large, these developments have put the engineering workers in a weaker bargaining position: if the employers can't sell the goods they produce, a strike is hardly likely to be as unwelcome as at other times.
Developments outside the engineering indus try as such have also had an important effect. Obviously, both the general crisis of British capitalism and the specific policies adopted by the government to solve that crisis have contributed to the difficulties facing the engineering employers, and to the very different problems facing the engineering workers. But they have also contributed to the development within the working class of a willingness to undertake new forms of struggle, and among sections such as the miners Jong-standing resentments have been brought to a head.
Thus the miners" victory prompted the government's concessions to the UCS work-in. This came at a crucial time for the Manchester claim. Originally, after the claim was referred to plant level by the union leaderships, "carbon-copy" claims were submitted by stewards at all plants in the Manchester District of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Empatering Unions. That is to say, the same mands-for E4 on the consolidated rate, fer 1 35 hour week, for extra holidays, and for I progpes towards equal pay for ted at each plant in the 200,000 ker were involved, at lich agproximately 2y are oll coup. In shot. there was a very tough response from management.
TA 1Oс Is a Lanco tiny LaDy and so far than for a long thirdly, the firms in the fewith indinidual exceptions, fola the national policy of the EEF, which to replace the now-abandoned York proe agreement with another one that can, mamework of the Industrial Relations ermanently shift the balance of forces industry in their own favour.
Sects of the miners" victory have in ways disorganised this tactic of the en. Besides the UCS concessionsave very effectively popularised the 14. paradoxically, not the work-in) if groups of workers-the other in government policy have weakenbesion of the bourgeoisie and of its representatives, while simultaneousnave been noticeable improvements cale of key sections of the working , the rejection of the 'carbon-copy' the Manchester employers led to a and thence to widespread sit-ins. ry that was adopted for pursuing the my the ESEU Stewards Meeting on 13 was an embargo on piece-work and mr, and a work-to-rule. Whether a vald have been preferable is arguable: id certainly have been big problems g that line on many shop floors. In the ban on piece-work was accepat plants in the Manchester and aunt areas, though little action has been in the traditionally less militant BolThe ban had been accepted, the only was: who would strike the first blow. tient time, management could not cases afford to let unit costs take majump upwards. Nor could they without undermining the negotiaon of the EEF. So their obvious te: Stockpiling until the ban took then: the LOCK-OUT. no action came at the Bredbury steel part of the GN combine. Here manaat began stock-piling, whereupon the OCCUPATIONS work-to-rule and bans on piecework were imposed immediately. The employers' response was to threaten a lock-out: the occupation took place Thursday 16 March. In the next few days similar events took place at other factories: Davies and Metcalfe (in Romily), E. Peart and Co. (Hyde), Mirrlees Blackstone (in Hazel Grove, part of the Hawker-Siddeley group), Sharston Engineering (Cheadle Hulme), and Lawrence and Scott Electromotors (Openshaw). Significantly, all these firms except LSE are in the Stockport area: Stockport has long been the most militant and best organised part of the engineering industry in the Manchester area and is a solid base for the CP.
Roughly speaking, after the first round of occupations in the period 16 to 26 Marchbefore the ban on piecework and work to rule were instituted generally-there have been three distinct phases in the struggle. During the first two days of the action, the level of struggle continued to increase: British Steel, Openshaw and other plants were occuned on Tuesday 28 March. On 29 March, scupying worken and took legal action to have them evicted as trespassers. Whether the BEF regarded this as kite-flying, or as a backwoods eccentric messing up their own plans, is not clear. What is certain is that on the 29th the Court at Preston did grant the writs. Unfortunately, the occupation ended the next day with the men re-instated but with no substantial progress on the claim From the granting of the writ at Shanton's until almost a week later, there was some thing of a temporary downturn in the strug gle. But on Wednesday 5 April, followin a toughening of management's attitudes six further sit-ins took place. These included Hawker Siddeley Aviation at Woodford, near Stockport, and both plants belonging to the Francis Shaw plastics machinery firm (in Openshaw and Salford). Two days later a further three plants, including the Metal Box Company in Altrincham, were occupied. Currently it looks as if in almost all cases the fight will be a long one. Besides the sit-ins already mentioned, there are lock-outs at HSA Chadderton (near Oldham) and GECAEl Trafford Park. Despite the replacement of the manager at GN-Bredbury negotiation on Wednesday 5 April broke down. In about twenty cases settlements have already been reached: on most of these secrecy is being preserved, but in two cases firms that made concessions on hours and conditions have had to leave the EEF.
If the struggle is drawn out, then two aspects are going to be crucial. The first is the ability of the unions to extend the struggle to other plants, and to make big breaches in the emloyers' solidarity. So far as this is concerned. it would be simple insanity to delude oneself that "200,000 engineers are ready to occupy'. Unfortunately, the extension of the struggle will require real effort on the part of militants within the unions, including action by the union officials. However, it cannot be denied that both on the shop-floor and at official level considerable effort is being put into involving new factories and groups of workers: the AUEW-TASS (DATA) claim is being treated as part of the general clai, and at key plants thaj are weak pressure is beginning to tell. Revolutionary groups, provided that they adopt a correct approach, can make a contribution to the extension of the struggle which would be out of all proportion to their size. Obviously the national and local press are not going to do anything they can to help spread the sit-ins: there is therefore a big opportunity for revolutionaries to do so through giving widespread publicity to the sit-ins already going on, and to new developments as they take place. The Manchester branch of IMG assisted the Manchester Free Press (a local 'alternative paper) in the production and distribution of its second supplement on the dispute for precisely this reason.
The same supplement also dealt with a sphere in which only the revolutionaries can assist: the utilisation of the Social Security system as a strike fund. Because it is only revolutionary groups, and at that mainly the IMG, which have been active in the Claimants Unions and in organising claimants andthe unemployed for a whole period, they and they alone have the information and the expertise to ensure that the SS can be beaten. In Manchester, the IMG has produced a 10-page pamphlet, selling for 2 p, explaining in detail the rights of strikers, and how to get them. So far 350 copies have been sold, not to mention thousands of leaflets being distributed and wide circulation given to the joint Free Press-IMG bro battle with the SS.
But if the role of revolutionaries can be crucial on that particular front, and if they Engincering workers occupying the Metal Box Co. factory at Timperley, Manchester can further get across some very important ideas concerning the significance of the strike, their influence can only be limited. The present struggle, despite the fact that it takes a very advanced form, and that the whole experience and self-organisation of the engineering workers is concentrated into it, is still a fight for better wages and conditions inside a bourgeois-democratic framework. And the most stupid mistake revolutionaries could make in this situation would be to counterpose some other form of activity by the Manchester engineers to that they are engaged in now. To say, "you are involved in an economic struggle but what is needed is a political struggle (against the Tories) - build the Party!" does not help at all. On the contrary, we must do everything to support the existing struggle.
But it is precisely because a struggle whose objects do not go beyond that of wages and conditions is incapable of solving the basic problems facing the working class that revolutionaries need to stress the importance of linking that struggle to a general struggle for workers" control and for a government which permits the working class to struggle for workers' control through its organisations. Not counterposing but linking", basing one's explanations on the actual living struggle of the working class.
Manchester IMG.
over Scotland tenants and trade unioni are organising themselves to fight the test attack on the working ciass of this atry by the capitalist class under the se of the Tory government- the Housing imam cial Provisions) Scotland Bill, now *g through the committee stage in the se of Commons. The Tory government ched this attack on local authority tes back in the summer under the predicNe name of A Fair Deal for Housing, a sous name for a document designed to roduce mandatory increases which will ake nonsense of any Tory claims to imartiality, fair mindedness, or indeed with any concern-for "galloping inflation". Two of the provisions of this particular bill show this very clearly-section 29 of the «ll compeis all local authorities and developat corporations to raise rents by a minim of 224 per annum in the year "72-73 ad E50 per annum the following year. Thus, rents will be rising a statutory minimum £1.50 per week within two years. But this bill is a double edged weapon. Section 27 specifically forbids the housing authority to take into account "the personal circumstanoes of the tenant": in Scotland this means an end to the graduated rent scheme which se local authorities were operating) based ot income. This bill means that most rents will almost double in the next two years, and in Scotland, where most working class milies are housed in council houses, this I mean a devastating cut in real wages for wage earners of these families.
The main protests coming from council house tenants are aimed against the increases and the new (to new towns) rent rebate scheme which is just another means test to go through. Rent rebate schemes have heen in operation in a number of towns and cities ice the Labour government introduced em in 1968. They form part of the general ve towards selectivity in the social serClearly the reasoning behing this move a that if you make people feel that the heneits won for them by the struggles of their predecessors are in fact a kind of hand out charity, and if you further obstruct them with mart of red tape before payment is made. then the take up rate will be very low, as witness the Family Income Supplement. The Labour Party have been very vocal in their condemnation of this "anti working class La they call it. What hypocrisy! What downright lies! It was the Labour government who did the ground work for this bill: ai they did the groundwork for the Industrial Relations Act. The 1965 Rent Act was the precedent. This act established rent assessment committees, who decide what is to be a fair rent; needless to say the Tories will not besitate to use these to great effect, and as mentioned it was also the Labour governmeat which brought into heing the rent rehate scheme in 1968. Therefore this act must not be seen as the wicked Tories pinchcarry it out. But it is clearly only this sort of action which will ensure victory and rank and file trade unionists must take up this call if the rents hill is to be defeated.
But at the same time it is necessary to go beyond the rents bill and to link the fight against it to the fight against the industrial Relations Act. The Fores are reeling from punches from the miners and the UCS workers, now is the time to put in the boot. A massive national rent strike, with massive national strike action if the authorities evict: this, if conducted in the proper manner, could defeat the rents bill and the Industrial Relations Act. Committees of action to fight the rents bill must he set up all over the country, committees of workers, unemployed and tenants who can plan and co-ordinate. Street or area defence committees must also he set up to ensure that no one is evicted or victimised - these must have links in the local factories to ensure instant strike action if any evictions are carried out. The unemployed have a part to play here, they will form the bulk of these defenc committees while the rest are working. Housewives too can play an important part by organising themselves to protect their homes and the homes of their neighbours. The fight must not be left to the working class elite, such as Labour councillors and trade union bureaucrats, this is a fight for the rank and file for only the rank and file can win it, and only if they are organised in committees of this nature will they be able to do so. The working class of Cumbernauld have not been slow in the past to take action to protect their interests. Only last year the workers of the local Burroughs factory conducted a victorious 16 week strike, the local youth employment office was occupied by unemployed teenagers in protest against unemployment and in solidarity with the U.C.S. workers, an unemployed action committee was formed to fight unemployment which managed to orEPganise various demonstrations and other actions. When one considers that Cumbernauld only has a population of just over 30,000 then this is not at all a bad record. We of the rent strike action committee are confident that once again we can show a good example to the working class of Britain as a whole by being the first to initiate a massive rent strike against the fair rents bill.
FOR A 100 PER CENT EFFECTIVE RENT STRIKE.
INDUSTRIAL STRIKE ACTION IN CASE OF EVICTION.
COMMITTEES OF WORKERS, TENANTS AND UNEMPLOYED TO FIGHT THE RENTS BILL.
AREA AND STREET COMMITTEES TO DEFEND THE STRIKE.
-P. McKenna Cumbernauld I.M.G.and Rent Strike Action
----- pull-quotes -----
ENGINEERS' PAY CLAIM: SHOW THE WAY