THE LIAISON COMMITTEE for Defence of Trade Unions, which came to prominence in int fight to defend the trade unions In Place of Strife' proposals of the 1966 Labour Government, represented the most significant organisation of rank-ana-He in cecides. _oogy is living on credit — a shell living oft us reputanon or tormer years.
Not since December 1970, when it was the main organiser of a trial Relations Bill, has it organised any major acuon. attendance at its conferences has Tallen as mutants nave scho and less purpose in attending.
From conferences like that in June of 1972, when 1,300 delegates were moouseo an aust Tour week.
discuss the fight attendance has fallen to 500 in October 1973 and only 300 in March 1975.
Indeed, along with the decline in numbers. LCDU 'conferences have steadily become more and more like rallies. UnC delegates yawn through the day listening to Ken Gill and other "star' bureaucrats, only to vote for or against a declaration on which there are no amendments or alterallowed.
of the LCDTU's forthcoming conTerence in the Morning star, lack of activity for two years had ica many minants to beneve mar the LCDU was not only on its death bed but that rigor mortis had set in.
The usual reason given for this sorry state of affairs is that the situation has changed - that the "movement' is not ready for action and has to be patiently built. What the Communist Party, the inspirers of the LCDTU, understand by the "movement' is best expressed in the resolution passed at the CP conTerence in November 915.
•Continuation and extension of These arenas cancreased readiness by the unions to struggle" and turner err ana bropressive davances") by the work of Communists and others on the left can make the prospect of a majority of unions with left policies and progressive leaderships a reality in the foreseeable future.
*This must be the aim, and the continuous growth of rank-and-file organisations can tackliate Whilst it is necessary criticise the left trade union leaders when they tend to vacillate retrcal, this must arways be done with the aim of preserving and Turnering une wanty or taeel, and isolating the right.
For the Communist Partv the "movement' constitutes an alliance with the left trade union leaders. When the lefts' like Scanlon 'vacillate' by supporting the Social Contract, then the CP makes a constructive criticism to persuade them of their "mistaken ideas" or so Bert Ramelson, CP Industrial Organiser, has explained in the Morning Star.
What is involved here is not simply avoiding an ultra-left error or not being able to distinguisn between the right and the left - but a policy leaning renance upon the left leaders, a policy of to march with tnem, always keep in step with them".
It is this policy which has also led to the decline of the LCDTU. At its January 1974 conference one speaker demanded the ending of the TUC talks with the Tories (who were then preparing to take on the miners with the three-day week, and also keeping the Shrewsbury workers in prison)
DESERTED Jim Hiles of the CP replied: We do not want to antagonise those in leadership who have fraternal rel ations with the LCDTU, and said that it was a long, hard struggle to reach a position 'where we have the ear' of some of the leaders.
It was this policy of preaching reliance on the lefts which led to the demoralisation of the real mass movement when those lefts deserIca ine struggle to derend working class interests. Had CP preached TenanCE on the set. organisation of the rank-and-file instead, it would also have been in position to force the lefts to HERE Today, however, the former lefts Scanlon and Jones have deserted to the camp of the Social Contract for all to see. Where previously these lefts would have the LCDTU a nod and a wink, and then the CP would then feel happy to call for strike action, today even the lefts have capitulated before the TUC without a fight.
Faced with this the CP keeps the LCDTU in train, trying to pressurise the lefts without going so fa as to take accon bring them into conflict with those lefts. Even had the CP not decided to keep the LCDTU dormant for the last two vears. a body which limits itself to declarations of good will is hardly likely to inspire confidence or interest - and certainly not to rebuild the genuine mass movement of the rank-and-file.
We should finally mention the other brain child of the CP - the 3,000 strong National Assembly on Unemployment held last March.
The Assembly held great promIse —00 many Dronses In racie lobby of the emergency TUC, a dav of action in Mav. a lobby o the main TUC — all were promised and none delivered. It seemed that the Assembly was unable of itself to pressurise the lefts into action - and since they didn't want action, none was forth"coming.
One might ask why the Assembly wasn't recalled, and instead the the answer might be that militants would expect too much of the National Assembly on Unemplovment and want to know why it took no action? They might "readiness of the mass movement' ing of 3,000 delegates was in store and that would be ultra-let wouldn't it?
Rich Palser This makes all the more urgent -ine cal contained in me goer Letter for the fascists to be prevented from making party political next general election. All Red Weekly readers are urce to ootain a copy or te Open Letter and raise it in their organisation for endorsement and