Until the mid 1960s the opposition to the rightward shifting policies of the main working class parties in Europe came from inside these organisations. In Britain this was represented first by the Bevanite left of the 1950s, and then by the left-wing currents formed around the question of unilateral nuclear disarmament and within the Young Socialists.
From the mid '60s onwards this situation began to change. First a mass youth and student movement grew up which could mobilise tens of thousands on issues such as the Vietnam war. Then, from 1968 onwards, there was a mass upsurge of the working class against the integrationist 'negotiated incomes policies' of the mid 1960s.
In many countries this upsurge was directed against the policies of Social Democrats. In Britain there were the strikes against the Labour Party's anti-union laws (In Place of Strife) in 1969. In Germany and Sweden major 'wildcat' strikes took place in the same year. In 1969-70 enormous strikes, involving fifteen million workers, broke out in Italy when the socialists were in the government. In 1973 a Labour Party participated first in the Vietnam general strike erupted in Denmark. In France in May 1968, although the Socialists and the Communists were not in the government, the general strike and factory occupations clearly developed against the wishes of these two parties. In other words, the years since 1968 have seen the biggest strike wave in Europe since the early 1920s (and in the case of France and nary the biggest suikes ever seen at any time in any country taking place either outside, or directly against the organisational control of the mass parties of the working class. Despite great weaknesses, these massive social upsurges have been showing an increasing ability to organise themselves outside the bureaucratic apparatuses of the traditional mass parties. In France in 1968 the absence of elected strike and factory committees allowed the French Communist Party to call off the strike wave without organised resistance. Since then Part of demonstration after shooting of Pierre Overney Rod Wooll however the election of strike and factory committees has been seen on an increasing scale. In the spring 1973 upsurge of school students in France, the whole struggle, involving over half a million, was organised through democratically elected and regionally federated committees. The authority of these committees was so great that the French Communist Party was forced to negotiate officially with them. Similarly, in the strikes of immigrant workers in May 1973, the union leaders were forced to accept that representatives designated by the workers should participate in the negotiations with management.
TWO CHOICES Faced with an upsurge beginning outside their organised control, the forces within the mass organisations of the working class were faced with the choice of either attempting to stamp out the struggles or co-operating with those forces involved in them. For the genuinely left forces at the base of these parties, of course, this presented no problems. They were for co-operation.
In Britain, sections of the left-wing of the Solidarity Committee marches and then supported the mass strikes well before any shift occurred in the party leadership. Thousands of Labour Party members must have taken part in the strikes against In Place of Strife, thousands more would have supported the one-day strikes in support of UCS, against the Industrial Relations Act and the May Day strike this year. Big difficulties, however, faced the leaderships of the mass working class organisations. Those who were first to feel the pressure from the base were the trade union leaders. More immediately forced to take a position on the mass struggle than the Parliamentary leaders, the trade union bureaucrats either had to turn to the left or, if they refused, suffer defeats and be replaced with new 'left' bureaucrats. In France, for example, the once Catholic based union federation, the CFDT, began to move sharply to the left. In Italy the union leadertions to the left of the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. At the recent congress of the CFDT, the second biggest union federation in France, resolutions put forward by the Trotskyists of the now banned Communist League gained 15-20% of the vote.
BIG DANGERS Making concessions to forces to their left obviously carries big dangers for the bureaucrats. The dynamic of the struggles which such concessions launch may get completely out of their control. For this reason, the political leaders preferred initially to try and crush the The classic case was the French Communist Party (PCF). After the May 1968 General Strike, sparked off by student demonstrations and strengthened by the May 13th joint demonstration of the Communist Party and the students, the PCF vowed never again to engage in common actions with 'leftists." It systematically attempted to root out their influence, denouncing them as 'student rabble' and government agents. After a series of defeats of this line, its policy finally collapsed when a young Maoist worker, Pierre Overney, was shot dead by the private police force of the Renault company. The PCF condemned the left rather than the police for the killing, and urged people not to support the demonstration against the shooting. Yet 200,000 people ignored the call of the PCF and joined the demonstration. Scared of losing control of the situation, and of being outflanked on the left by the Socialist Party, which had, for its own reasons, supported the demonstration, the PCF turned to a new policy of 'tactful relations with forces to its left. It was forced to negotiate with the strike committees at the time of the student upsurges of this spring and has protested against the banning of the Communist League. (Although, of course, it makes its tactical turns in its own Stalinist manner - it refused to allow the Communist League to speak at the meeting called to protest against the ban!). Although it still tries to stamp out movements to its left, in practice lar the weakly organised Social Democratic parties, are negligible. Furthermore, as was discussed in the first article in this series, the ruling class's current strategy of direct confrontation with the working class closes for the social democratic leaders the option of coming to power with the support of any section of the capitalist class. The Social Democratic leaders, if they continued their policy of open alliance with the bourgeoisie, would be in danger of being crushed between the rising struggle on the one hand and the move to a 'strong state" on the other. The reality and acuteness of this danger was brought home in the 1969 Presidential elections in France, when the Socialist Party, running on an openly right-wing ticket. obtained a tiny 5% of the vote - the smallest percentage it had ever obtained in its history. NEW ALLIANCES In this crisis of perspective for the Social Democratic parties, of course, some sections of the leadership (the Jenkins of this world) are for continued alliance with the capitalist class - indeed they want to move still further to the right to somehow try to get back capitalist support. Eventually these elements may break with the mass working class organis ations altogether. Other sections have always been against the open seeking of support in the ruling class and were for collaboration with the left forces. Up to the end of the '60s, and particularly when in government, the top leadership of the Social Democratic parties (Wilson and his European equivalents) had decisively sided with the right. In the new situation they begin to allow the left to present the 'image to the party and even to engage themselves in left rhetoric - Wedgwood Benn marching with the UCS workers, Wilson condemning Caetano's visit, etc. Of course any real break with the bourgeoisie is avoided -Wilson threatened to veto the nationalisation proposals of the Labour Party executive Mitterrand of the French Socialist Party will allow no tinkering with France's commitments to NATO - but a definite change in the basis of Social Democracy's political appeal takes place In an organisational form this move shows itself in two ways. Firstly in an alliance with the Communist Parties. Secondly in some joint actions with the 'independent' left, including often the revolutionaries. This shift in the alliances of the Social Democratic parties from parties of the ruling class - Liberals, Conser vatives, etc. - to the Communist Party has gone furthest so far in France where the Socialist Party and the PCF put forward a common programme and stood as the 'Union of the Left' in the elections.
A similar shift has also begun in Italy. Here the Socialist Party has since 1969 been shifting back to collaboration with the CP at a local level, and has officially proposed a policy of 'more advanced equilibrium' ie. accepting CP support and collaboration. While the party is participating in the latest Centre-Left government, the left-wing has strenuously opposed this move In Britain, with a far smaller CP, and with the Labour Party being able to form a government by itself, this shift is not so pronounced. Nevertheless, at the base, collaboration between the Communist Party and Labour Party members is increasing, made easier by the TUC's recent ruling ending the ban on the Communist Party in the Trades Councils. To the extent that the Labour Party takes an increas ingly left position on industrial struggles more unofficial collaboration can be expected -Wedgwood Benn marching arm in arm with Jimmy Reid is just the beginning.
Joint activity with the 'independent', and in particular the revolutionary, left is very dangerous for the Social Democratic parties. Nevertheless, even this is developing to some extent - particularly in countries such as France where the SP and CP are in a contest to see who can put on the most left face. Thus, for example, when the Communist League was banned in France, Mitterrand was careful to be photographed shaking hands with one of its former leading members - Alain Krivine. In Britain Eric Heffer's articles on 'Unity of the Left' in Tribune are an indication of things to come Alan Jones
Towards the end of 1972 the most serious attack yet faced by the Rhodesian regime was launched in the Mavuradonha mountains in north-east Zimbabwe by members of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).
In comparison to the commando-type operations mounted in the period 1965 to 1968 this was an extremely well prepared incursion. It reflected the beginning of the evolution of the struggle from one merely inspired by nationamost stubborn European tarmers and severely damaging the local economy. Extensive use of land mines has greatly handicapped Rhodesian communications and has resulted in a large number of casualties among the security forces. BORDER CLOSED The Rhodesian Government obviously thought that things were getting out of hand when the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) guerrillas also began operations, in the Victoria Falls area. After the mining in January of a South African Police truck, which killed two of litative change in guerrilla activity. In the past, particularly in the Zambesi valley, the regime's internal intelligence service was able to rely on the local inhabitants for information about 'foreigners'. This enabled the security forces to mop up the insurgents fairly rapidly. In the north-east, however, the reverse is, true. Because the people had been adequately politicised beforehand they actively assist the guerrillas. Seconly, there is considerable liaison betpursued by the Smith regime, indeed its very existence, are very far from being an anachro nism. On the contrary, they have the very definite purpose of protecting the interests of both foreign imperialism and the indigenous capitalist class. It is therefore not surprising that the liberal gesture of economic sanctions has proved to be a mere empty token, as shown when the United States lifted the boycott on Rhodesian chrome for defence purposes".
----- pull-quotes -----
NEXT WEEK: open letter to Eric Hetter on Unity of the Left in reply to his articles in Tribune