mously controversial question even on the socialist left. The Communist Party, for example, have great faith in Jones and Scanion. Certainly they make mistakes, so the Communist Party says (for example supporting the TUC-Government talks was a mistake'), but when it comes to the crunch they will be on the right side. We think this faith of the Communist Party and others is completely misplaced.
'Left' Bureaucrats While Jones and Scanlon are certainly more left than someone like Chapple, they have shown by their actions ar Chryslers, in the docks dispute, on questions such as the 25 companies dispute in the Labour Party, that when the real crunch comes they finish up on the wrong side. Scanlon is already trying te avold a national encincerine strike. This It is the employers and the state-in short the whole capitalist system-which are the real reasons for the present attacks on the working class. But the policy of the ruling class is af present being orpinised by the Torr government, which is spoarheading the assault on the working class. While getting rid of the Tories would not finish the job, it would be a decisive step forward to deal with this mastermind of the capitalist offensive. In the past the Tory goverament has behaved like an octopus-no matter what individual policy has been defeated it has put a slightly different one in its place to do the same For example, the first measure it attempted to use to chain the working class was the Industral Relations Act, Afler the rail waynen's strike the Faccine of the Five and the ALEW'S Policies for the crisis From the facts we have already pur forward, it is clear that the coming months are going to see the biggest class struggles for decades. These clashes are going to come regardless of the ideas of any working class political organisation. The only cuestion which inst stake le howwell
equip the working class to deal with the crisis. We have already shown in this article what the view of the International Marxist Group is on the present situation. What policies are put forward by other organisations, and why should they be rejected?
Our differences are obvious with the leadership of the Labour Party, The Labour Party's policies rely totally on elections and, as a result, they have taken no steps to mobilise the working class in the strike struggle against the Tories and the employers. The Labour Party is not preparing the working class for the coming struggles. Of course many individual members of the Labour Party have played a tremendous role in the struggle. Ever some entire Councils -most notably Clay Cross-have been in the forefront of the fight. We believe that unity should be forged with Labour Party members in the coming battle, in particular to put Labour Party controlled facilities at the disposal of workers engaged in struggle, Labour Councils should take a clear position on the strike struggle, putting their facilities at the disposal of strikers, and fight against the use of the police anti-picket squads in their areas. Many, although not all, Labour Party members think that the only real way out of the situation is to elect a Labour government, But the whole record of Labour in office and the Ramelson also called for actions of gencral strike dimensions." But, as a whole, the CP's official policies avoid the crucial question of the sure way to get rid of the Tories-a general strike.
This failure to take up a clear line on the general strike and how to get rid of the Tories is bound up with the second wrong aspect of the CP's policy -its relation with the trade union leadership. The CP places the whole weight of its politics on an alliance with the trade union "lefts"-in particular Jones and Scanion. Of course no one can blame the Communist Party for seeking united action with trade union leaderships, On the contrary this must be sought at every opportunity. Neither is the CP wrong for pointing out that there is a difference between the left" and the right" in the trade unions. Only a fool thinks that, for example, Scanion and Chappie are the same. Where the CP goes completely wrong, however, is that they organise the struggle in such a way that it depends totally on unity with trade union "left leaders" so that the struggle cannot be carried on successfully if these leaders finish up on the wrong side.
For example, in 1970 the CP helped to build a massive movement against the Industrial Relations Act through the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions. This managed The result was that after the TUC ducked out of the struggle at a special congress, the movement was left in a dead end. The LCDTU conference held after the special TUC, months too late, was only a third the size of the one held for the 8 December strike. A similar story could be told in struggle after struggle. One of the main reasons the CP will not take up the slogan for a general strike to get rid of the Tory government is precisely because it would bring it into conflict with the left' trade union leaders who are not at all prepared to support such a policy.
The third reason for the failure of CP policy in the present situation is its position on a general election. The Communist Party thinks socialism can come peacefully following the election of a socialist government. For this reason it sees general elections as absolutely of key impor tance. It is waging a big campaign for a general election. This policy is completely wrong at the best of times. It becomes completely reactionar in a period approaching a general strike.
Faced with a general strike which threatened to topple the government and smash the power of the ruling class, the Tories would undoubtedly like to resort to a general election. The reasons are obvious. When the workers are engaged in a mass strike their feeling of solida1968. The answer of the revolutionary working class movement to this has always been to counterpose the real democracy of workers councils and councils of action to the phoney democracy of bourgeois elections.
On the field of trade unionism the CP in general still understands the role played by bourgeois elections. It knows perfectly well that a secret ballot type of manoeuvre is put forward by the boss precisely to destroy the direct democracy of the workers in mass meetings. Such manoeuvies are designed to split the workers up as individuals and destroy the solidarity of the working class. When it comes to politics however, by making a general election the decisive struggle, the CP plays right into the hands of the ruling ciass.
The CP is even more short-sighted here than the ruling class. The ruling class has no intention of accepting a general election result if it goes against it. The tragic events of Chile show this only too clearly. The working class must be told openly that a general election called in the middle of a mass strike wave-in particular in the middle of a general strike -would be a manoeuvre of the ruling class. The CP declares instead that the general election would be the decisive thing, and su plays right into the hands of the ruling class