3

GETTING IT RIGHT'If capitalism had been conducted all along as if thetheory of private enterprise were a matter of principle ... weshould have had civil war long ago.' - Harold Macmillan

(Sunday Times, 10/2/1980)

'What the 20th-century British working class has done is toadopt the abandoned social values of the -rstn-centurvEnglish upper class. Their attitudes to work, to money-making, to ambition, are essentially aristocratic, evenquixotically so, to the point of self-destruction. Honour,loyalty, conformity with the old customs, even love of aparticular home - all these mean more than enrichment.Better to let the old estate crumble into ruin than sell tothe highest bidder.As for strikes and picketing, are these not to be preferred

- the modern equivalent perhaps of hunting and shooting -to the degradation of productive work? .. The Tory Party,judged historically, cannot escape its responsibility forprolonging a form of society which enshrined the anti-industrial values that so many trade unionists now embody,even down to the neo-feudal deference shown by the shopfloor to the shop stewards. "Ours not to reason why, oursbut to do and die." In the old days, workers were commendedfor their sheep-like obedience. They were not supposed tohave minds of their own. Now, of course, the Tory Partyis all for seeing more shop-floor independence. But whotaught the working class to look up to their superiors forprotection; who created the reverence for hierarchy whichthe trade union barons now exploit?'

(Peregrine Worsthorne in the Sunday Telegraph, 10/2/1980)

'Mr Heseltine says: "At the moment no one knows the, answers. The Left is not interested. They have justmoved from private capitalism to state capitalism withoutever questioning the management of manpower. I obviouslyprefer private capitalism. But if Socialists ever startedexamining the problems we are looking at, they could changesociety. Luckily they never do. " ,

(The Guardian, 7/12/79)

'It was in these inter-war years that successive Governments,from. Lloyd Georges through to Neville Chamberlain's.successfully tempted the trade unions into a partnership inrunning the economy, rightly recognising that this was thesafest way for Britain to avoid violent insurrection. (Russia'sBolshevik experience in those days seemed a dreadfulwarning.) Political and economic concessions to the growingpower of organised labour seemed a small price for parlia-mentary democracy to pay for social stability during thesetimes of slump.''One would Ilke to think that workers were showing them-

selves more respectful of the aims of a duly electeddemocratic Government. In fact, of course, they are merelyresponding to the big suck of unemployment. They arebowing to market forces, with more resignation thanreverence. This is not so much consent as acquiescence.''Encouraging shop-floor rebellion against trade union

authority is a dangerous game, since the authority ofmanagement, temporarily re-exerted on a basis of fear ofunemployment, cannot be regarded as very firmly based.Nor can the authority of parliamentary government, re-exerted on the same shaky foundations. History cannot bebrushed aside. Like it or not, in this country, as a resultof our particular experience over 50 years, trade unionshave become the focus of working-class loyalty, the sourceof working-class discipline - a State within a State: Ifmarket forces are encouraged to erode that loyalty" orundermine that discipline, are we quite certain that thereis anything solid to take its place? During the last greatslump, as I say, Governments of every party came torely on trade union authority to buttress their own. Mrs.Thatcher's, however, seems determined to claim working-class loyalty in its own right, over the heads of tradeunion leaders.''To destroy the only shelter that exists to mitigate these

chill winds is asking for violent trouble, the prospect ofwhich is none the less real for being disguised at the moment I

by an appearance of deceptive passivity.'(Peregrine Worsthorne in the 'Sunday Telegraph'. 24/2/1980)

The Cuts continuedslogan. There has been small response from the unemployed, while scabs, private steel bosses and small employers have loudlyresponded to the SWP slogan 'Fight for the Right to Work'. How ironic that the tactics of leninists in demanding jobs of aneconomy which they believe cannot create them is used against them as 'work ethic' ideology to.promote capitalist expansion.How then do those who are not part of the 'left concensus' apply themselves to the cuts issue? Those who refuse to be

lemmings sacrificed for the Labour Party's return to power. Obviously the cuts would be better applied to thebureaucrats' sinecures instead of further restricting the services already diminished by successive Labour and Tory admini-strations. The historical evidence is that support for campalgns, however critical, like 'Fights Against Cuts', will be directedto resuscitating the Labour Party. Strengthened by the blood sucked from the idealism and the revolutionary hopes, thevampire will return to the parliamentary graveyard. Yet· not a few libertarians and anarchists who oppose the Communistsocieties which operate by releasing a 'social wage' from state-capitalist accumulation, are coat-tailing the 'Fight Aganist Cuts'in the 'social wage' in Britain. This inconsistency will not expose the opportunism of the marxists . Always inferred inarguments by the trad left in defence of the social wage is a criticism of the private use of the 'paid' wage. Not surprising,since increasing the social wage enhances the authority of, and dependency on, the state, which they favour, and is seen as astep towards the 'socialist' goal Defence or extension of the 'social wage' is not simply protecting standards of living (which canbe excused although not particularly revolutionary); it is also aiding and justifying the process of state accumulation of capitaland control as well as encouraging the trad left's aspitations to power (which is counter-productive and downright reactionary).The revolutionary dissident has to point out the shortsightedness of taliing sides in the argument over the 'virtues' of 'state'

against 'private corporation' accumulation, (since they are inseparable front overall bureaucratic planning) or siding with'social' against 'paid' wages (since they are both gained by wage labour). If the abolition of all wage labour is one of thedissidents' objectives, distinctions should not be made favouring 'social wages' against the 'prrvate' use of paid wages, as if theformer was a step towards 'socialism'. Relative standards of living may be of supreme political relevance to the trad left.They are not a central issue for us. Removing property and production from private ownership and bureaucratic sanction,whether it is the individual, the family, the corporation, the state, the union, the workers co-operative or the 'alternativesocialist" commune, Is 'tha. basis for restructuring society. This will require periods of insurrection, instead of the TUC's'days of action. But it presupposes the responsibility and the necessity of collective management of social life and physicalsurvival· to ensure the benefits of a rational existence. A culture derived from self-management rather than being managed]has creative possibilities compared to today's existence, where, after needs are manufactured and desires seduced, anxietieshave to be tranquilised and boredom amused.

________ L.

4~------------__--------~--~--~~~~~==~~=tGeorges Seguy, Communist Secretary-general of 'What we want for the workers is their participation in thethe French Confederation General du Travail, management of the firms they work for, effective participa-

tion with appropriate rights anrr powers. That is how weinterviewed in Le Figaro, 25/101979. define our commitment to the ideas of self-management

which have long been current in the international labourmovement '" I think it is possible to imagine workers'control without necessarily having to go through greatpolitical, economic, and social upheavals. particularly sincethe level of consciousness required for a truly self-managedsocialism will not be achieved from one day to the next:I do not believe in miracles; on the contrary I believe thatit will come about through the progressive extension ofdemocracy. If you want to call that reformism, although theterm is an exceedingly derogatory one, I wouldn't quarrelwith it. Given the times we live in, I think that is theonly logical and possible revolutionary path for France. Iam a realist. '

'I read the article in which you accused us of being"irresponsible". What do you want? If we were to adjustour position in conformity with such an absurd argument,the workers would no longer recognize us as the tradeunion in which they can place their confidence because wedefend their interests, and they would look to all manner ofirresponsible people. And France would become the stagefor a whole range of wild, anarchic and violent actions,leading to a situation in which you would be the first tosuffer and which you would regret bitterly. It is in theinterests of all of us that the authority of the trade-union movement, that the authority of the leading unionbody, which has always given proof of its sense of respon-sibility not only with regard to the workers, but also withregard to the country's economic interests and even withregard to its economic and political independence, it is in allour interests that that trade union upholds its authority andcontinues to play its part. And so it will, on conditionthat' our opposite numbers recognize our authority and ourindependence ... '

UNIONS PLEAGovernment should give TUC two years to show it can controlunions and if it fails, only then introduce legislation, SidneyWeighell, NUR general secretary told Cambridge UniversityStudents.

(Yorkshire Evening Post, 19/1/1980)

Editorial 2The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the coup d'etat led by its puppet Babrak Karmal,head of the pro-Moscow Parcham Party, has aroused a chorus of indignation from the West. Thecompelling force of this rhetoric can be seen in the determination of numerous Olympic Committees to goto Moscow whatever their governments might have to say. The latest regime to lend its support and addsome tone to the Western camp is the military junta in Chile, while since its coup in 1973 has rivalled theKremlin in suppressing working-class dissent.The threats to the Olympics being made by the Western powers are of course nothing more than an exercise in political

bluster. To understand the true nature of British concern, one has only to look at this country's long history of counter-insurgency in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, Ulster, ad nauseam., When the workers of East Germany, Hungary, Poland andCzechoslovakia rose in revolt against Stalinist bureaucracy, only morons believed that the Western ruling class would come totheir aid. And while reactionaries and authoritarians like Solzhenitsyn and Bukovsky have been feted as heroes, the attempts bySoviet workers to form free trade unions and the violent suppression of strikes such as that in Novocherkassk in 1962,where 80 workers were shot down, have been ignored.Thatcher, Carter, et al care for the people of Afghanistan just as much as they care for the workers of their own countries.

What really worries them is that Soviet expansionism and its setting-up of client regimes in Africa and the Middle East(notably in Ethiopia and South Yemen) threatens their vital supplies of on and their markets and trade routes. Likewise, Sovietdomination of Afghanistan not only secures Its borders against hostile neighbours in Iran and China, but also brings it thatmuch closer to India and to the naval facilities it needs to transform the Indian Ocean into a Soviet-dominated pond. Despitetheir rhetoric about socialism and democracy, the rulers of East and West are first and foremost concerned with securingand maintaining power. 1J:'hestaging of the Olympics in Moscow and the threat of a boycott are just further moves in thelethal marathon or power Politics.A war, or the threat of a war, is always a good way of diverting attention away from the state of affairs at home.

In rattling the Cold War sabres and ranting about a Red menace, Thatcher is merely emulating the example of her Sovietcounterparts, who use the threat of Western imperialism as their excuse for the dismal living standards and lack of humanrights 'enjoyed' by the working class in the USSR and Eastern Europe.The left in Britain has reacted in its usual manner by playing the role of loyal opposition to the SOviet ruling class. Typical

of this line of subservient double-think is the article which appeared in the WRP daily News Une on 8 February, under thethe heading The Moscow Olympics must go on. 'Despite our opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan,' whines the article, 'westand four-square behind the defence of the USSR against imperialism. (Yippeee!) Part of that defence involves the right ofthe Soviet Union to host the Olympic games this year.' The laddies in the Kremlin will no doubt reward their staunch supportersin Clapham by gunning down a few more workers in the Ukraine.The traditional left is blind to the fact that the USSR is one of the strongest epicentres of capitalism. They do not see the

Soviet Union as a principal contestant in the game, preferring to imagine that imperialism is a Western and not a Russiancrime. Yet the strength of Soviet military power comes from the expropriation of a massive economic surplus produced by thebureaucratic coercion of its own and its satellites' populations, who are conceded a social wage far short of what is achievedin the West.Despite this, the left continues to believe that the USSR is purely reactive to 'the' epicentre of world capitalism in the USA.

They show their qualified sympathy by limiting criticisms of the USSR to polite protests about the quality of boiled maggotsserved in Siberian labour camps. That is why there are no left-instigated demonstrations outside the Soviet embassy.This makes it all the more necessary to publicize the struggle of the Soviet working class and to undertake the defence of

those who have been victimized for their participation in that struggle, but not by pressurizing Labour MPs and union bureau-crats, or by muting crtttctsms of the Soviet elite in the belief that the USSR is some kind of workers' state.The resistence to the bureaucracy which is cla.8s-based has to be separated from the activities of those claiming to represent

ethnic and national minorities, religious groups, and intellectual elites, to whom bias and favour is shown in the West. This meanshighlighting the repression of strikes, shop-floor resistance, and attempts to form autonomous workers organizations. And forthe sake of clarity, explicit opposition has to be shown to such ragbag reactionaries as the Young Tories, Muslim fanatics,and right-wing emigres who recently demonstrated in Trafalgar Square.

5

SEQUELAE OF ALEAFLET •

•

SPARE RIBCENSORSSOLIDARITYIn the December issue of the feminist magazine Spare Rib,the following attack appeared on the London Solidarityleaflet, "ABORTION; THE INSIDE STORY", 2000 copiesof which were distributed on the TUC's march against theCorrie Bill.

A WARNINGThe present political climate -including the Corrie Bill - hasmade it increasingly importantfor women to think abouttaking the law into our ownhands.Women in othercountries have been learningto do abortions themselves asan important part of theirfeminist practice. But leafletsdistributed on the march bygroups such as 'Solidarity'contain dangerously inaccurateadvice and information aboutself-help abortion. Wewould.not adviseany women tofollow this advice. While itis important for feminists hereto be considering and learningabout self-help methods, itshould be a slow, careful andconsidered group learningprocess - following misleadinginstructions can be fatal.

In a fashion typical of the national press when dealing withpolitical opponents, the leaflet was discredited without thereaders being given a chance to judge the contents; showingcontempt for them in the manner of the press machine,by deciding what is best for them.A letter (reprinted below) from a member of Solidarity to

Spare Rib in reply to their 'warning' has not been published.An article entitled" ABORTION: THE RIGHT TO KNOW"

in the Oxford community newspaper Back Street Bugle,before the censorship of the Solidarity reply, examinedSpare Rib's suppression of the contents of the leafletand the motivation behind it. We know Spare Rib wereangered by this article, but their later refusal to print thereply, justifies the attack on them in retrospect. Perhapsthey do not like being confronted with the assertions abouttheir motives. We quote from Back Street Bugle "Perhapsthe "official" feminist movement wants to keep the monopolyof knowledge on menstrual extraction, so that women willbe dependent on them if legal abortion is ever seriouslyrestricted.' ,

lsequel, n. What follows after,icontinuation or resumption of aI story etc. after a pause or prov-isional ending, (in the s.,later on)after effects, upshot. sequelaIn. (med; pl, -lae), disease etc.[consequentlal on another. (se-!cond)

Elsewhere Peace News (25/1/80) printed a letter attackingthe leaflet without investigating the allegations. They laterprinted a letter of protest from Manchester Solidarity.The Leveller with a bit of slack reporting managed to

mislead people into confusing our leaflet with a highlydangerous one from a source described only as CommonKnowledge. So far the Leveller has failed to clarify the issue.Pieces in the Newham Recorder (21/2/80) and Guardian

(13/2/80) referred to the method described in the leafletas a practice people would resort to, if the law changed. Tothis we say; 'Yes! Probably they will.' If the slogan "Notthe Church, Not the State, Women must decide their fate",is to mean anything, then the habit of making demands ofthe state and its agencies must be challenged and changed.While attempts are made to point to the vast diferences

between the Solidarity and Common Knowledge leaflets laxreporting in the above papers (and in the case of theScottish Sunday Mail (9/3/80) deliberate use of 'shock-horror') lumps both leaflets together. The Sunday Mailrefused to print a reply from Scottish Solidarity. We includebelow our own condemnation of the Common Knowledgepublication. However the Sunday Mail piece did giveus the quote of the debate from Corrie himself. "I think thishas probably come about because of a misconception ..... "

NAC

Assuming that the National Abortion Campaign arecorrectly reported by the press and condemning both leafletsequally; are they incapable of differentiating between ourleaflet on menstrual extraction and a document advocatingand giving detailed instructions on a dangerous 'back-street'method of abortion?

WCSWPerhaps the most unfortunate action was undertaken by a

group of women in Leeds calling themselves 'WomenConcerned for the Safety of Women' (WCSW)who appear tohave circulated a letter to most left/radical bookshopssuggesting the removal of the leaflet from the last issueof our journal. A face-to-face with these women might help,if they choose to confront us. (We guarantee their individualanonymity, although they did not consider ours in theircircular.)The debate continues with an article in this issue dealing

with the problems and dangers of menstrual extraction,as well as some of the reasons for discussing it.Monopoly of information is a cornerstone of a sectional and

privileged society, to be attacked (in this case) whetherit is the practice of mystique by the medical profession.or of censorship by a small group of women who want tokeep the facts about the method to themselves or undertheir control.

6As many women as possible must be made aware of the

method' to enable them to debate its possibilities and itsdifficulties and then consider its practice.

KARMANGiven the tormented bitterness colouring the perception

of a section of the womens movement towards all men,it cannot help being observed that even if Harvey Karmanhad been a 'good guy' he was still a man. There is someevidence accompanying the WCSW letter on Karman'sdubious activities, but there is no denunciation of the methodhe poineered. Is it because this technique is felt to bestill the most suitable?Is part of the hostility to the leaflet really due to the

fact that it was produced by what they see as a 'male-dominated' group? Is that what prompts the remark inthe WCSW circular; "They (Soiidarity-EDS) have no morethe interests of women at heart than had Harvey Karman."?If Solidarity is 'making capital' as they state, by addressing

itself to the question; couldn't the 'womens movement' besimilarly accused? Is the 'womens movement' the self-appointed spokeswomen on abortion for all women? (Actinglike Leninists who claim to speak for the 'working-class').The TUC bureaucrats aren't the only ones who want tocrush dissent.Mightn't the women in Solidarity, some _9f whom are

'feminists' (in the tolerable sense of the word) and perhapseven the men, have a worthwhile contribution to make?The debate on menstrual extraction spreads far beyondthe 'womens movement'. Spare Rib and WCSWmust stopstifling it.Revolutions start to rumble when people ignore self-appointed

leadership. This applies as much to elite cliques of feministsas it does to Leninist vanguards.

'Prickly-person' (Leeds)

PostscriptPatrick J~~ln, Social Services Secretary, in a

parliamentary answer on 11th March, said the Solidarity andCommon Knowledge publicatfons were being referred to theDirector of Public Prosecutions. Widely reported in thepress, some papers, deliberately or not, used the amalgamtechnique to confuse them in the minds of the public.A letter appeared in the Guardian (27/3/80) to clarify theissue, from a Jean Raison. We quote from it; "PatrickJenkin and your reporter are both wrong about this leaflet.It doesn't hide its origin, but is openly published by theSolidarity group in London. It doesn't recommend do- it-yourself abortion, but clearly warns against such a step.It doesn't advocate breaking the 1967 Abortion Act, butclearly warns against such a risk. It doesn't describe amethod used by backstreet abortionists before the 1969Actbut the Karman technique developed in the United Stateaduring the 1970's and successfully used in several countriesincluding Britain. It doesn't give .false assurances aboutsafety, but quiterightly says that this method is acceptablysafe when properly used by trained people."

LETTERTO....

Dear 'Spare Rib',Your warning to readers (Dec. 1979) about the leaflet on'Menstrual Extraction' produced by the London Solidarity groupfor the October 28 Abortion demo. contrived to repeat pointsmade in the leaflet itself while telling everyone to disregardit completely. We agree it is important for women to considerthis topic - that's why we did the leaflet. We agree thatthere are risks involved - that's why the leaflet was headed.with a warning not to use it as an instruction manual. Wedo not agree with the unsubstantiated slur about 'dangerouslyinaccurate advice and information'. If that was what youthought, it would surely have been more responsible to sayexactly what the inaccuracies were; but we are given no singleinstance, and no scrap of accurate information to put in its'place.' In fact, we gave no 'advice', except in the form ofrepeated cautions. But perhaps our error was in raising thematter at all?For years the only printed references in circulation about

this technique of safer, earlier abortions have been apparentlyknowing allusions which gave the uninitiated no idea of what itwould be like either to undergo the procedure or to be one of agroup practising it. There was a demand for more detailsfrom women not among the fortunate few already in theknow. Starting from scratch, some of us began to researchthe topic thoroughly, using articles published in medicaljournals (references available on request). After comparingand collating many accounts, we based our description of theprocedure on two articles written by Harvey Karman in1972, plus additional data where necessary, to illustrate thepoint that paramedics under medical supervision had done itsuccessfully. I suppose Karman's account could be all liesand distortions; but if so, why was it not denounced along withall the other denunciations of Karman when he came intoconflict with women's groups in the States? In any case, theleaflet was not intended to cover every detail of the technique.It was supposed to tell interested women a bit more than theyknew already, and to suggest possible lines of further enquiryin case they might decide to take their interest further.A modest contribution - but more, as far as I know, thanother groups have yet been prepared to publish openly.I would endorse the warning that no woman should try this

in isolation or untrained, and agree that a 'slow, careful,considered, group learning process' is required; we said asmuch and more, emphasising that contact should first be madewith people already experienced in the technique, and trainingundertaken thoroughly and systematically.I should like to hear from anyone who can document the

alleged inaccuracies (e.g. the time of aspiration given seemsvery short, but it must be remembered that this only meansthe time taken to draw a few millilitres of fluid into asyringe, and does not include insertion of the cannula orany other part of the procedure).I should also like to know - given that you acknowledge

this to be a legitimate area of concern for women at thistime - how on earth we are supposed to make a start if~y. attempt to discuss it is to .be put downwith purely negativecritlcism and even smear tactics. Or is Spare Rib onlyconcerned with small elite groups of the right sort of sisters?

Best Wishes,Liz

c/o Solidarity123Lathom RoadLondon E614.12.79

MORE ON7

MENSTRUALEXTRACTIONWHOSE ARE THE RIGHT HANDS? In France andthe USA, one result of women's self-help healthgroups practising early vacuum abortions was achange in the laws, making legal abortions easier.In Britain, one result of producing a leaflet describingthe technique of very early vacuum abortion has beenthat opponents of the Corrie Bill, designed to makelegal abortions more difficult, have pointed to it asan awful warning; this, they say, is the sort ofthing that desperate women will be driven to ifCorrie becomes law.We don't object - on the contrary - to strengthening the

case against any restriction on our already imperfect controlover our own bodies and lives. But the argument sometimestends to miss the point of what we are saying and whyit fits in with our politics.Even with the legal situation at its most favourable, women

are obliged to seek out sympathetic doctors, to plead theircase, and then to put themselves into the hands of thespecialist. From a libertarian point of view, this is notideal. Nor is it absolutely inevitable. A procedure whichcan be performed by groups of women, not medically qualifiedperhaps, but having made themselves experts because ofcommitment to what they are doing, not only tends to increasethe individual's control and power to take decisions; it also hasa high chance of being safer and less traumatic thanabortions carried out in impersonal clinical conditions, oftenlater than necessary because of red tape, and possibly byioverworked, alienated or indifferent staff.Our attack on the monopoly of expertise does not mean,

however, that we deny the importance of intensive studyand systematic training. Indeed, any group setting upunofficially and illegally to perform such procedures wouldhave to be ultra-scrupulous, more so than some professionals.Not in order to enhance the mysteries of the craft by making itseem more difficult, but because the responsibility is very realand serious.To emphasise this point, and to correct any impression that

we have intended to endorse the views of one particular'expert' (see' SSR '11), I shall summarise a few Of the com-plexities and differences of opinion encountered on going intothis in depth, Some of it might be off-putting, which wouldbe a pity if it led any woman to incur worse risks, such asphysical or psychological damage from later abortion, or alifetime of alienated motherhood. But in general decisionsshould be made on the basis of maximum knowledge ratherthan shutting one's eyes and hoping for the best ( and it will beno bad thing if it gives pause to those no doubt well-meaning people who say we should go and get done as soon aswe're a week overdue - on that basis, some of us wouldhave set up amazing world records for repeat procedures).

PATIENT SELECTIONIt will be apparent that the technique of 'rnentrual extrac-

tion' has limited application, and that unofficial, iUlegal groupswould be well advised to err on the side of caution. Theoptimum time for undergoing it is about 6-7 weeks afterthe first day of the last menstrual period, i.e. when 10-18daysoverdue. If it's done too early, there is a high chance thatthe patient may not be pregnant, and if she is, the conceptusis so small that it may be missed. It it's too late, the riskof complications increases, and the technique may not beadequate to complete the abortion. It is known that m.e.has been performed routinely on non-pregnant women, e.g.on and by groups of trainees; therapeutically, e.g. to avoidpainful periods; and for convenience, e.g. on women athletes.But when it is incurring legal as well as even slightmedical risks, I suggest it should be limited to cases ofnecessity, using the usual pregnancy test. This is not 100%reliable, especially if negative (it has a built-in bias againstfalse positives) but can be re-done if a woman thinks sheis really pregnant.Preliminary interviews and examination** should be

designed to make sure the procedure is suitable for eachpatient, excluding those with evidence or history of relevanthealth problems or abnormalities and making sure that thesize of the uterus indicates pregnancy is not too far advanced. **

PREPARATIONAnaesthesia and sedation are unlikely to be practicable for

informal groups. Most practitioners don't use sedation any-way; some use local anaesthetics, rarely general, but quiteoften none at/ all. Careful and constant couselling andinvolvement of the patient, and attention to how she feels, goa long way.Personal antisepsiS is usually applied, internally and

externally. The vagina is sometimes described as self.cleansing, and it may be thought that swabbing about insidecould do more harm than good; doubt has also been cast onwhether the application of antiseptic solutions makes a sig-nificant difference to the infection rate. On the other hand,since infections can occur, groups might choose to do every-thing possible to prevent them. This question, and others,will not be resolved here.The highest standards of hygiene must, of course, be

applied both to personnel involved and to the surroundings.

EQUIPMENTKits consisting of a self-locking syringe and flexible plastic

cannula are mor or less commercially available. Cannulaeare pre-packed and gas-sterilised, and are intended to bedisposable. If they are re-used, and effective sterilisingmedium is needed. BOiling won't do, since they are heat-sensitive; iodine can also damage the plastic, and formalin

8can be an irritant; benzalkonium chloride, recommended forthis purpose by a world conference of 'experts' (and suggestedin our leaflet) is one of a group of antiseptics heavilycriticised as ineffective by medical opinion. Alternativespresented in a more recent research are: minimum 10minutessoaking in a solution of 'Cidex' or 95% ethanol (unfortunatelythe same researchers give iodine as another possibility).Other items of equipment used must be sterilized too. Whetheranything other than the basics are required, and what sizeof cannula to use, will vary between patients. ** Cannulaehave to be closely examined for signs of damage, since therehave been cases-of the tip breaking off.Various improvisations have been used to substitute for

packaged kits. Syringes (50ml.) can be modified, as longas the vital self-Ioeklng principle is borne in mind (to guardagainst highly dangerous air embolism); in the case of hand-pumps, one-way valves are used. The idea of modifiedbicycle-pumps, and the insides of biros (for cannulae), soundshorrific, and certainly would require considerable skill -an extra dimension of risk, to be avoided if at all possible, infavour of purpose-designed instruments. The latter, however,may not be perfect either.

TIME TAKENEstimates of under a minute for complete aspiration seem to

be on the low side, but 2 or 3 minutes is often given, inthe context of 5 or 10 minutes for the whole procedure.Duration is affected by the reactions of the patient, whoexperiences cramps, and apparently can take hours whendone by very sensitive practitioners. Completion of theevacuation is not indicated by timing, nor by the volume oftissue removed, but by a charateristic sensation felt bythe operator.** Patients are usually ready to leave afterresting for half an hour or so.

COMPLICATIONSPatients need not expect the worst, but practitioners

should be prepared for it, just in case, although thecomplication rate is low, and those which do occur are mostoften not serious. At the time of the operation, a patientmay experience pain above an acceptable level. It may bedifficult to insert the cannula through the cervical os,especially in patients who have not borne children. Such

women may also have a strong psychological reactionagainst the process. The operator may decide that it isinadvisable to carry on.** Blood loss may excede thecapacity of the syringe; if it looks like filling up (over 30ml.)it can be detached, emptied and replaced or exchangedin situ.**The most common complications are incomplete

evacuation of the uterus, sometimes continuing pregnancy,and pelvic infection, the symptoms being heavy bleedingand cramps for the former, fever for the latter. Usualtreatments are repeat procedures and antibioticsrespectively. It is always possible that things can go moreseriously wrong, and groups would need to be aware of all thedangers, including rare conditions such as ectopic prenancy.But it would be unnecessarily alarmist to list them all here.To put it into perspective, my impression is that, when done

competently, m.e. would be more comparable with theminimal discomfort and inconvenience of having an LU.D.inserted (competently) than with, for example, a laterspontaneous abortion, induced by other means or childbirth,normal or otherwise. Which is not to say that it would bea pleasent experience or a way of solving all our problemsinstantly.

DECISIONIn fact, I still can't be absolutely sure which way I woulddecide, given the preconditions for becoming a patient(I'm sure I would not, personally, want to be a practitioner).But I know that I would want to have the choice.

TO STATE THE OBViOUS ....The choice for or against abortion at any stage must be

that of the woman concerned, and hers alone. Even if twopeople eo-responsible have worked out a common attitude inadvance, the fact of conception, or even the likelihood,can alter the decision either way. And then it has to behow the woman feels that counts. This is simply theobverse of the built-in biological unfairness whereby womencan get pregnant but men can't. We're stuck with that,but we don't have to let it determine our lives.

UNA.**Denotes points at which skill, knowledge and experienceare particularly indispensable.

COMMON KNOWLEDGE OR COMMON(DANGEROUS) NONSENSE?

Spare Rib's warning mentioned Solidarity; The Levellermentioned a leaflet on the 'soap-and-water' method, and~ommended Spare Rib for issuing the warning, thus~advertently confounding our leaflet with a completelydifferent one. In view of this, we must point out thatwe have no connection with the 10 duplicated pages underthe imprint of "COMMON KNOWLEDGE", which describedin detail how an abortion may be induced at 12 - 14 weeksby introducing an allegedly benign sterile liquid into thepregnant uterus. (See article in The Leveller).This publication embodies many faults we tried very hard

to avoid, and we would not advise anyone to do whatit says. Without going into all the risks involved we wouldpoint out: '1. Injection of any dangerous SUbstance by an unqualified

person into the uterus is a dangerous as well as an illegalprocedure;

2. Induction of an abortion at 12 - 11,weeks by an unqualifiedperson is a dangerous as well as an illegal procedure;

3. Induction of an abortion by an unqualified person withno-one else present except the patient is a dangerous as

well as an illegal procedure.Reading the "Common Knowledge" instructions makes

it even more understandable that there should be womenconcerned for the safety of women deeply worried about howsuch things 'are produced and distributed. But it is no excusefor ~eac.tinu.against the Solidarity leaflet in the same way,~arnng It unth. the same brush, and rejecting and suppressingIt wholesale without considering what it really said.

MIXING- ~5 I~~/J\N I-rH 1"'11155

()~~

9

LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS LETTERSDear SoIic8ity,I am writing in response to John Q.'sletter in SSR No 11 about the dis-cussion that has been going on in itspages, among .men, about "what todo with" the Women's LiberationMovement".I was encouraged to read on by

the beginning of the letter. There hasbeen so. much bitter hatred andincomprehension among some "Iibert-arian" men, and I hoped this wouldnot go the same way. Yes, maybe hehas grasped the connexion betweenhis personal hurt and fear, and howthis society's sexual hierarchy sets upa perpetual tension in all relationshipsamong women and men. Perhaps thisis a man who has begun to under-stand the contradictions that I (andmany of my sisters) feel in trying tobuild up new ways of relating withmen creatively, equally, constructivelyand freely, while we are still unequalIn this society.But my hopes were soon dashed.

I was angered by his having readWIRES and having the gall to referto it, and again by his suggestionsabout what to "do" with the WLM -does he mean how to, patronise it?or how to undermine it? I wish to saysomething about each of these.First, then, the issue of WIRES.

This is the internal newsletter of theWomen's Liberation Movement, andis for women only. This is writtenprominently on every issue, andcannot have escaped John Q.'s notice.So it must have been self-consciouslythat he read it. Now I am perfectlyaware of the problems posed by wantingto limit the circulation of informationand ideas in any way; the KGB, CIAand British Government do it all thetime and there are good reasons toread on principle that which is for-bidden. But I also thought that liber-tarians recognised that right ofoppressed groups to organise auton-omously around our own opporession.Indeed" that this was one of theimportant similarities between thefeminist and libertarian movementswhich had drawn me to both of them.If this was an illusion, I was notthe only one to be taken in; I didn'tnotice any barrage of critiCism ofLynne Segal, for instance, when shedrew-parallels in73eyond the Fragments.But it seems that- John Q. does notrespect this right, and in denying ithe places himself in opposition tolibertarian as well as to feministpolitics.WIRES is written on the under-

standing that it won't be read by men,for whatever reasons. The WLM onlygrew up when women realised thatour identity and needs would continueto be suppressed unless we madesome space for ourselves which waswithout men. WIRES is a part of thisspace. In undermining it, John Q.(and any other man who reads it)takes his stand as aggressor anddeclared enemy. Actions speak louderthan any words he may choose to use.How can he then claim to be surprised!hurt/angered at being treated as the

enemy? He makes me very mistrustfulof his rpotives. He's not acting asthough he does want sexual equality,but as if he wants to hang on tohis power and privilege as a man.

And his suggestions about" what todo with" the WLM reinforce mymistrust. He seems to want to eo-optinto an anti-feminist "anarchism" (ifit still is anarchism) whatever elementsin the feminist movement prove tobesusceptible and to destroy the rest.Further, he has compl'7telymisunder-

stood the nature of the WLM if hethinks it consists entirely of "debates"and "factions" . Sure, there are lotsof differences among feminists - I'mall too aware of that! I don't agreewith all my sister feminists, thoughI strongly defend their right to organisethemselves autonomously. But there'salso a lot that can't be understoodpurely through reading books andmagazines to "locate" the "debate",but which is at an emotional level. Idon't speak for the movement, but Ido think that one of its most importantaspects is the development of politicalunderstanding directly with ouremotions. Our politics are rooted inunderstanding and coming to termswith the latter, all the rest follows.So they _can't be properly grasped'only through reading or theorising.This is one reason why responses tothe movement are also so emotionallycharged.Like I said, at the start of John's

letter, I had hoped to find that hehad caught on to this, but it's clearhe hasn't worked it through at all. I,would like to suggest that if he reallydoes want to do his bit towards buildinga sexually equal society, as well asliberating himself from some of thepsychological fetters he recognisedthat we all have, he should continueto confront his emotional responsesto different situations he lives. Thisis very difficult to do beyond a certainlevel, and I'm sure he'll need thesupport of other men to do it. Withthem to talk and work out the politicsof it all, and then to be helped bythem (and help them) to draw con-clusions and to act them out in life.I'm not underestimating how painfully,difficult this may be, nor how slow a

process', and it' will take much courageand honesty. But the anti-feministshrapnel that has been flying aroundin "libertarian" spheres recentlymake me feel increasingly certainthat there's a lot of dishonesty around.The protagonists must confront them-selves and each other and work out-whether they really do want equalitywith women, and really do want tohelp push society towards more rree-dom and equality, and thereforerespect what the WLM is trying to do.Or do they really hate women, deepdown, but fear to say so openly, lestit undermine their trendy libertarian/socialist credentials? Do they want todefend their present advantages andonly be libertarians and socialistswhen it, suits them? In which case,they are among my political enemies.I can't tell what concluslons they

would come to, what direction thisprocess would push them in. But itseems necessary. And along the waythey may learn better to relate toother men and better to listen toand understand their own emotions.They may find they have less need ofwomen and are better able to relateas equals with ,those with whom theydo come into contact. I hope so.But in the meantime, there'sja lotelse to be done that we might beable to do together. i hope this ispossible, though sometimes I reallywonder.Liilda M., Oxford

Dear SoIic8ity,As I recently read 'The Slow-BurningFuse' I was wondering what hadhappened to John Quail's head. Myquestions have now been answeredby the man himself, who publicallyadmits, in a letter in Number 11 ofSolidarity, that he has lost part ofit. I can now tell him of the where-abouts of this missing portion of hismental faculties. When reading moreof the execrable 11th issue I discoveredthat it is now calling itself Dimitriand lives in Manchester.Yours,Brian Damage.

10

GAltlVANISINGTHESTEELThe advance publicity given to the steel strikepromised us yet another confrontation between thegovernment and the trade unions. It was aconfrontation which the unions were determinedto avoid, and the government equally determinedto provoke. With its obsolete political ideology,the Thatcher faction has convinced itself thatthe unions are unnecessary for the integration ofthe working class into the system of exploitation.The left, unwilling to surrender the prize forsenility without a struggle, descended on thepicket lines to call for the defence of alreadydiscredited unions. This was the dual strategy ofcapitalism: where blue serge failed, blue denimstood ready to move in.

Both before and during the strike, union leaders emergedfrom their 'patient negotiations' to sound warnings againstthe social unrest and economic chaos which would resultfrom monetarist intransigence. Again and again they insistedthat their aim was not to confront the Tories, but tocollaborate in ensuring the viability of the steel industry.With considerable pride they pointed to their record ofaiding in the restructuring of the industry while avertingindustrial action.Since 1965 the number of workers in BSC plants has

dwindled from 317,000 to 184,000last year, largely due tothe introduction of new technology in the form of electricarc furnaces. These have not only brought a dramaticincrease in productive capacity, but have also made thesteel industry less dependent on coal, no doubt in preparationfor the Bennite nuclear future. In short, the unions werewilling to implement redundancies in exchange for stateinvestment, while Labour governments were willing to investin the knowledge that a steel industry in private handsdid not have the financial resources to maintain productionin periods of recession and so guarantee the supply of steelif and when markets expanded once more. Despite thistouching faith in the future survival of capitalism, theLabour Party was unable to prevent stiffer competitionfrom countries such as Korea, Japan, and Brazil. The resultwas that the BSC faced massive interest charges (currentlyrunning at £208million a yearJ,.' a redevelopment programmethat was only half complete (and required a further 52,000redundancies), a declining share of the world market, and anew government that was ideologically opposed to nationalisedindustries.In insisting that the BSC should force the pace of plant

closures and redundancies, the Tories were merely acceler-ating a process which had previously been mastermindedby the Labour left. However, a confidential report submittedto a Tory policy group in 1978had suggested that a futureConservative administration would be able to withstand alengthy strike in the steel industry. Recent sta.terneritsby Joseph have confirmed that a combination of plantclosures and asset-stripping is to re-establish the profit-ability of the industry (while rewarding the private sectorwith an increased share of the market). As long as suppliesof steel were readily available and this was guaranteed

strike - then industrial action by BSC workers could onlyserve to hasten the restructuring process. Confident that ithad nothing to lose from the strike, the government imposedits cash limits and withdrew to await developments.Despite anguished pleas from union negotiators, the BSC

went ahead with the rundown at Corby, insisted on afurther 52,000 redundancies at least, and finally made itstwo percent pay offer.While the unions and the left squabbledabout production statistics in ari apparent attempt to provethat British steelworkers are more docile than any others,the BSC management carried out job reduction exercisesand identified 2,300 'non-core' jobs in the profitable Sheffieldsteelworks group alone. This points to a sustained campaignof informal resistance which has successfully lowered outputand imposed manning levels decided on by the workersthemselves. Others chose to opt for voluntary redundancy, atimely rejection of fraudulent appeals for 'unity' fromcareerist shop stewards with an eye to the supposed dignityof labour.The secret talks in which the ISTC saw its last hope of

reasoning with management and hoodwinking the steelworkersfoundered on demands for unconditional surrender. Not eventhe ISTC could find any enthusiasm for the dismembermentof entire plants, particularly in view of its convictionthat managerial ineptitude (the crisis of leadership!) wasforcing the industry into irreversible decline. This has ledthe union leaderships, far-sighted in matters of preservingcapitalism, to see themselves as its saviours until the returnof a Labour government. Dismayed by the overt classhostility of the Tories, who are more interested in demon-strating their ability to rule like latter-day colonialists thanin pandering to uppity workers or bailing out the nationalisedsteel industry, the unions moved in to rescue the situation.Their problem was how to do this without losing the alreadyuncertain allegiance of their members, which they stillneed if they are to have a plausible claim to share inthe functions of guiding and managing the economy as awhole.Anxiety about the state of the economy turned to aggression

as the bureaucrats found themselves squeezed betweenthe intransigeance of the government and the mountinganger of the steelworkers. Speaking at a TUC demonstration,Murray reasserted the unions' claim to be the 'authenticvoice' of the working class and issued a raucous threat:'We are here to demonstrate our unity, and anyone orany organisation which in any way, whether by utterance,action or by seeking disruption, destroys that unity willhave to answer to the working class of Britain.' Thebelligerence of this statement was in marked contrast to theplaintive warnings about social unrest. With the mass picketsoutside Hadfields and elsewhere taking on the characterof workers' assemblies, decisive action was necessary tore-establish control of the strike.It was soon to become evident that the strike would

have to pass beyond the control of the unions and into. thehands .of the steelworkers if it was to achieve more thanthe accelerated .restructuring of the industry. In the firstweek the ISTC .Issued instructions that the private sector;as no~ to be. mterfered with, and throughout the strikee varIOUSunions (notably the NUM TGWU AEUW

NUR) took it in .turns to order normal worktng, ' , andThe local strike committees altho

for normality. Little more than juntas of shop stewardsdetermined to maintain their managerial perogatives, theyissued orders and shunted pickets around the country withas little effort to consult and inform as they had shownpreviously when taking decisions behind the workers' backsor negotiating redundancy agreements. The effect of this wasto leave token pickets scattered about the country in isolatedgroups of three or four. Indiviual workers were able todiscover what was happening only by courtesy of the media,as was shown by the ISTC's use of newspaper advertisementsto urge rejection of BSCpay offers.Even so, the pickets took to using their own initiative

when deciding which goods should or should not be allowedthrough. This deplorable disruption was ended either bywithdrawing pickets entirely,as at the British Leyland plantat Bathgate, or by issuing specific instructions that only

---"ccnoTfn"'slgnments of steel were to be turned back. __Where direct instructions failed, or where mass pickets

converged, the unions made militant noises and sent vagueappeals for solidarity through their bureaucratic channels.When it looked as if the strike might spread to miners inSouth Wales (whose jobs are also threatened), Murraystepped in to cool the situation and promised a day oftaken protest on 14 May, converting the threat of directaction into an ineffectual march against Tory policies. As onesteelworker put it, 'Len Murray and the TUC are only talkingin support of us. That's no good, we don't need budgies,we need help on the picket line.' Time and again the unionshad to ward off justified suspicions that they were draggingtheir feet. Faced with a demand for action from Yorkshireminers, Scargill was able to post himself at the head of aflying column and march on the police line outside Hadfields,where he was able to exchange pleasantries with hisuniformed colleagues. There was little else to do, sincethe day shttt had already started work a couple of hoursbefore.The hostility and cynicism aroused by the unions made

it all the easier for managements to address appeals tothe workers over the heads of union leaders. As at BritishLeyland, the workers were faced with an unenviable choicebetween two gangs of unresponsive rogues who were clearlyin collusion with each other. When Sirs sat down tosecret talks with the chairman of Hadfields and agreed that thefirm should be given immunity because of its financial problems(as if the workers had nonel), this merely reinforced theclimate of anxiety and suspicton, ISTC-ornctals at FirthBrown, another Sheffield firm, were later reprimanded bythe managing director when they suggested that the companywould collapse if there was not an immediate return to work.This was only one of a series of comic-opera reversals

during the strike. We saw the 'right to work' slogan beingbrandished by both sides, one eager to cash in on the

11opportunity afforded by the strike, the other seeking supportfor meaningless and mystifying slogans, both convincedthat an obedient involvement in unremitting production(and occasional reproduction) is the only right and properactivity for the working class. Flying pickets were dispatchedto ISTC headquarters in London and Scargill'scommandcentre in Barnsley - at the request of Hadfields' bosses. TheBSC made reformist demands for more democracy in theunions and held its ballot about a ballot, the pinstripe(or should that be poloneck?) equivalent of the campaignbeing mounted by the Liaison Committee for ConstitutionalReform ( !), a ginger group within the ISTC. This time itwas the government, not the unions, that was denounced forwrecking the economy, and Hadfields Chairman, Nortonpranced .and capered like any hysterical shop steward.Aspiring state capitalists of the left persuasion would

do well to - .note L'1at theiI plans fOl 'workers' control'are by no means assured of success, now that the shopstewards who are to control the workers have lost theirmonopoly of populist militancy and appear more and morein the guise of boilersuited bosses.With the traditional labour movement reduced to muttering

in dark corridors, it might appear that its authority isirretrievably lost and that the way is now open for theemergence of self-activity and self-organisation on the part ofthe workers themselves. But the appeals to outdated loyal-ties will continue,along with the oafish conduct that seeksto contain spontaneous activity within bureaucraticconstraints. These pretensions will be enthusiasticallysupported by a left which has for years refused to recognisethe elementary truth that the unions have become the majorenemy of the working class.In the meantime, the unions face an additional complication

in the impending laws on secondary picketing which willflush them even further into the open. Prior's EmploymentBill proposes to penalize those unions which fail in theirattempts to curb effective industrial action. If it becomeslaw, it will mean more rigorous controls on local initiativesand spontaneous resistance, or overt collaboration with thepolice in removing troublesome pickets. Either way, theunions will not be able to avoid still more disaffection inthe future, with a corresponding shift towards autonomousactivity as traditional loyalties continue to disintegrate. Andwhen workers come to confront these obstacles to their ownemancipation, their actions will have to assume the characterof a revolt if they are not to remain the victims of a lucklesspast.We may leave the final word to Prior himself: 'You can

pass all the laws you like, but if you cannot get the consentof the people you cannot enforce these laws'.

P.S. (Sheffield)

12

AGINGUNEYOUTHAnyone in any doubt of the extent of control ineveryday life should look closely at the unemploy-ment business - not just at what is exchangedover (and under) the counter, but at the window-dressing too. Even this distinction may be amisleading one because, as this article shows, themanagers increase confusion and helplessnessamong the people (products) they deal with, whilepurporting to do the opposite.

going for over two years now. There are four types ofscheme:

-Pfoject work: usually painting and decorating oldpeople's homes;

- Workshops (carpentry and metalwork): seen mainly asa dumping ground for the less able;

-Work Experience on Employers Premises (WEEP):with its high success rate, this is the 'piece deresistance' in the eyes of Manpower Services, who fundall these schemes. Success means getting a young person·employed by the firm which took them on as a traineeon a scheme. In other words it is a very convenientpiece of machinery for the firm, in terms of selection.AlsoIt costs nothing;

-Community Service: the mopping-up operation.Trainees on this scheme are involved in a 'caring'role. There is a lower staff/trainee ratio than onWEEP so that young people 'with problems' can gainmore attention. Staff are expected to provide a numberof services - education, social work, careers advice, etc.

Although they are funded by the Manpower ServicesCommission (MSC)' most schemes have another employingbody called the sponsors. In addition they may have one ormore advisory bodies. This means that anyone working onthe scheme has at least three tiers of management todeal with. including the manager of the particular scheme.At all levels of management, from MSC through to sponsorsand team staff, there are various and rapidly varyingshades of opinion. The following questions may give anidea of the area of debate. They are taken from a work-sheetwhich was issued at a conference organised by the NationalCouncil for Social Service (NCSS) for those working onCommunity Service schemes. There was no trade-union

LOYEDrepresentation at this conference, a surprising omissionsince union officials with their managerial expertise areusually welcomed. However, it does reflect the politics of theorganising body and of the projected members of the confer-ence.'Does Community Service actually provide tangible

marketable skills? Is it too much person-centred?'The fact that the questions are posed in these terms at

all. of course. means that the answer to the second one is'yes'. Here is yet another turn of the screw of guilt forthose in the 'business who are already guilt-ridden becausethey are employed on the basis of others' unemployment.Now we must examine their tender consciences and seeif they are being good at the job as they should be. It iswortnnotmg tne combmation or dltterent types of jargon inthis quotation. The raw comercialist 'marketable' istempered by the sociological-sounding 'skills' so that youhardly notice its weight. The faintly contemptuous, American'person-centred' lightens this part of the question too. As for'tangible', it serves to reinforce the tenor of the argument(paraphrased as 'We want measurable results from perfor-mance') while being nonsensical - skills are not tangible.'Do supervisors need to be trained in handling daily

social education or is it all common sense?'Again the sociological element comes in - 'trained',

'social education' - and is set against an (implied) morerealistic one. The previous quote had the business worldas its point of reference. This one has a relatively old-fashioned 'plain man's' approach - 'common sense'.'Is it a function of the youth Opportunites Programme to

encourage trainees to question the purpose of routine, badlypaid jobs or to encourage the "work ethic"?'Here a seemingly liberal attitude is counterposed to a

rigid, Victorian one. These two outlooks and the attitudessuggested in the other quotations reflect the types of peoplewith university degrees, or older ex-armed forces andskilled craftsmen. The latter are more favoured at present(Thatcher-fashion), but may well fail eventually because theylack the communication skills of the former group.The two groups could be labelled 'soft-liners' and 'hard-

liners', but this is useful only as a rule of thumb. Cross-fertilisations occur, the puritan work ethic is rife and canbe 'discovered in the most et.frious hybrids. The fanatical,strict time-keeping feminist, for instance, is not an unknownbreed.

The equivalent of the old-boy network exists, perhaps notsurprising in what is after all, for all its pretensions tobe different, just an offshoot of ~e civil service. Onceyour face is known and fits, you go drinking in the rightplaces at the right time with the right'people, engage inthe right kind of cool, obscure conversation, wear the right,trendy uniform ... you can move sideways in the same sphereor even become more influeritial.Style is everything, whichever school you belong to: getting

work done in a minimum amount of time or filling therequired time up by making work; doing deals in the pub orworking through your lunch-break; laid-back artist orhysterical trade-unionist. Childcare and other sorts of 'care'and 'support' are sacrosanct and provide good excuses forabsence. You must have an excuse, however, and the moPe

.. capable-of .eliciting sympathy from ce-workers, the bettel.But the truth is inexcusable and almost as bad is theunimaginative story. Never, in any circumstances, get'heavy' (Le. serious).

The lowest level of management is thus effectively setagainst itself by the difference in attitudes to and styles ofwork. The argument is diverted away from the actual workand its worth into gossip, complaints and intrigue. It is alooking-glass world in Which the boss is not the boss, buta friend; there is no demarcation between the different jobsor for that matter between business and pleasure. Dealingsare in half-truths which cannot be condemned as lies,but nor can they be relied and acted upon. Apathy', paranoiaand paralysis result. No one is accountable to anyone, but.one is accountable to everyone, especially to the person oneleast expected and who has least to do with the situation.The power of the boss resides in absence rather thanpresence, as with all good bureaucrats. There .are nocontacts nor even many verbal assurances. There is endlessgame-playing (trade-union shops provide yet another forumfor that), witholding information, giving it at a strategictime, putting different slants on information given to differentpeople at different times. Hints are all that is needed. Theunspoken word is all-powerful,So much for relations between staff. Attitudes to trainees

and relations between staff and trainees indicate quite clearlyinto which camp the member of staff falls, especially inmatters of disCipline.Among soft-liners, consellingis advocated.

One does not treat the crime ~but the 'whole person'.Shock treatment is suggested - doing what the young personleast expects - for which it is advisable to know thempretty well, of course, so that 'conselling' pays off. 'Beingresponsible for oneself', 'self-discipline' and 'self-management'are all ideas which find favour with the sort-liners andwhich they preach to trainees. What people who take thisline fail to realize is that 'self-management' presupposes arelatively privileged positron in the first place, and a certainamount of choice. It is rather like the Victorian, liberal

13argument against state support for the poor: 'God helpsthose who help themselves'. Time and again Victorian'attitudes come up, more or less thinly disguised aspolitical/economic/sociological argument. Another quotationfrom an NCSSconference-paper illustrates this:

'It is fashionable to argue that new technology will makeemployment for all an impossible dream and that peoplemust be trained to enjoy their leisure. At the same time thepublic services are crying out .for greater manpower.Increased leisure will be a blessing for all so long as it isaccompanied by a reasonable income and the opportunityto make a contribution to the work of the society in whichwe live. If high and rising unemployment is the precursorof new technology it will appear as a curse rather than ablessing and its introduction will be no guarantee that allwill shaTe-itilbenefits.'As in an earlier quotation, this piece capitalizes on its

common-sense approach. This time, however, comon-sensehas been elevated to the heights of 'reason' ('reasonable','rational men'), which is reminiscent of the 18th and 19thcenturies. What with its generally high moral tone and biblicalresonances, it could almost be declaimed from a pulpit.One is almost blinded to the way in which the authorhas carefully selected his comments - the reason for thelack of manpower in public services is low wages. In thesame article the a.uthor says that there should be a commit-ment to full employment from all political parties and tradeunions because it is 'the young, black, unskilled, deprivedand handicapped who suffer most'. In America studies havebeen undertaken to show the links between unemploymentand - among other things - 'mortality'. Hence unemploy-ment has been labelled a 'terminal disease' (strange thatno one has ever publicized the studies of work and death.The life-enhancing properties of wage labour are so obvious).Thus any real discllssion about the issues of unemploymentgets lost in a mixture of sociological verbiage and Victorianpatronage.

The· are gradually(to them) of the temporary workers, as staff onschemes are. Their increasing numbers, if nothing else, canswell the union funds of the cuts campaign. Discussion atunion meetings centres round pay levels, job 'securtty .and ageneral bolstering-up of positions through negotiations,qualifications, obtaining places on boards, etc. As alreadymentioned, however, most of the subject-matter of the discus-sion provides a stage for the game-playing, the jostlingfor position. Nor does it facilitate meaningful. discussion tohave your boss (at least one) in the same union.No matter what the style of the debate, whether it involves

being 'open' about one's feelings - crrtleiztng someonepublicly, bursting into tears - or whatever, underlying it allis the question of job security. Even the hard-liners at thetop cannot afford to cut YOP completely in case they findthemselves out of a job. But in order to justify, retain orconsolidate their jobs there has to be rationalization ofschemes. it is called 'Integration'. It means less staff, morebureaucracy, a higher staff/trainee ratio and an increase induties for the same low pay. It would supposedly providemore variety of opportunity for the young person - andincidentally more chance, if not of controlling, then at leastof influencing life ouside work (if any should still exist).The idea is to have a 'Central Resource Unit' providing abase for:

education/training; vocational guidance (all the jobs youcould do, if they did but exist); information/advice;social education; leisure and recreational facilities;central administration.

~-~---- --------"~~-- - ---------- -

14In the description of this great new concept in managingthe unemployed such words as 'sharing' and 'co-operation'come up. Read sharing as in job-sharing (two for theprice of one) and coercion for co-operation, and a moreaccurate picture may be obtained, especially since 'low-cost' comes into it too (affecting those involved in organizingthe schemes). For the young person it will have all theadvantages of Butlins, making services more 'easilyavailable', putting the services within a 'generic context' annwithin 'an environment more acceptable to the unemployedperson'. It all suggests a highly sophisticated experiment. 'Control all variables. Behaviour modification on a grandscale.The 1970's saw a great expansion in the behavioural

sciences. The language and philosophy - materialist anddeterminist - was ironically inspired 'by Marx and hitsfiltered through into MSC literature via Ameri-can sociologicalthought. In the mid-70's there was still the soft-glovedtouch - the importance of catering for individual needs - agood way of selling the whole Programme: 'Now there isa much more blatant approach : numbers, money, turnoverand control are stressed quite openly. Results are neededto justify the MSC's existence. In the beginning MSCalso supported the suggestion that young people should beinvolved in running the project. Now it seems even moreattractive, in a way. (They would not have to pay staffwages.) According to Colin Ball, the man who advocatessuch an approach, all thatstops this possibility from becominga glorious reality are the 'vested interests' of 'minister, MSC,trade unions, employers, educationists and youth organizers'.He suggests shifting work expertence from 16/18-year-oldsto 13/16-year-olds and letting the former group set up theirown service and manufacturing enterprises, giving them achance to 'recycle the cash they earn rather than clawit back'. Very Alternative Socialist this .sounds, He saysthat young people should be allowed to 'compete and tenderfor contracts' and provide 'alternative public services ...social work to garbage disposal'. A nice potential strike-breaking source of cheap labour. Even more sinister, it issaid, that Community Action (as it will soon be called -update the image, make it more appealing to youth, getrid of the old 'do-gooding' fuddy-duddy one) is alreadybeing talked about in parliament as an alternative toconscription. The suggestion is that it is to be madecompulsory in the early 1980s. The common enemy now isunemployment, not war. Everyone must pull together tofight the spectre. To do this, iricreasing numbers are beingrecrunted from the armed forces. (A few years ago, thesemen would probably have been absorbed into the civil

The suggestion thaenvironment for mass control of youth might seem toofar-fetched were it not for the fact that most of the elementsare already here. There are integrated schemes inexistence, while others show similar tendencies.The 'Social and Life Skills Course', and in fact all the

stress on 'social Education' (read conditioning), means thatevery detail of behaviour is examined and laid open tocorrection. The whole ethos of 'social and life skills'is that of behavioural training. Programmes based onindividual assessment are evolved by the course tutor. (Theymay be designed in consultation with the student. Grow yourown stratt-jacket.) Social skills are not only about talkingto the boss and going for an interview, but also aboutchatting to neighbours and putting forward one's views. Lifeskills 'help us to get the best out of ourselves and out oflife': getting information, handling money, getting a job,'using' our spare time.

While people generally gain such skills in the normalprocess of living, they may lack 'opportunities for developinga sufficient range of skills'. It is at times of changethat people find themselves 'ill-equipped to cope' ... 'theyhave been deprived -of experiences'. Here the bookletquoted/from Teaching Social and Life Skills, published bythe nabonal extension College in collaboration with theAssociation for Liberal Education) goes on to list people whomay fall into this category. Workers made redundant arelumped together with immigrants, those with a physical ormental handicap, mothers returning to or starting work, and'people new to work - among these is the group mostat risk, those young people with little prospect of work'.The contributory factors are listed as: 1) an unstableeconomy - changes in the level and type of employment,2) changes in technology, 3) changes in country of residence,4) the change from school to work, from domestic to paidemployment, in short from one cage to another.'Life and Social Skills' is seen as necessary so that

'people may continue to help themselves, contribute to thelife of the community and retain their self-respect'.The assessment of individuals and their progress is based

on the following criteria: their ability to adapt, to anticipateresponses, to gather information, to construct and implementa strategy, and to communicate. Anyone who has lookedat managerial training will find most of this familiar. Itmay well be a useful structure for a tutor to base observationson and plan work around. The implicit assumptions howeverare that the individual should adapt to (not change) the statusquo, s/he is to be passive and without spontaneity, s/helearns to anticipate responses rather than to respond him/her-self. Life is seen as a gigantic obstacle course, and to getthrough it strategies must be evolved and P.1lt into effect.It is the bureaucratic dream. Information is collected anti

communication' is just another word for keeping the machinerunning smoothly. A pre-planned, pre-packaged, pre-livedexistence. Not quite, but nearly.Trainees are already receiving 'support' and counselling

about problems hardly connected with their employment (orlack of it). While on the scheme they are carefully'matched' to the kind of 'opportunity' they undertake andonce there are being constantly assessed. Absenteeismand bad time-keeping are seen as 'problems' which the youngperson has but which s/he can overcome with a lot of helpand encouragement.

The confused, who are so concerned aboutu~employment are staring up the integration process veryrucely by taking the initiative to hold meetings of allo:ganizations invol.ved with the unemployed; upholding then~ht to work, saying how they'd hate not to work, askingWIthgreat Intensity about your job satisfaction.This, article shows the many ways in which oeoole in the

Unemployment Industry manage to avoid looking at the realissues. Each scheme may appear to be fairly autonomous(because of the 'loose' management structure) and to havea ~stinctive character. This is the window-dressing,designed to allay the suspicions of managers and managed,workers and unemplyed, about the purpose and valueof the work they do. So in addition to obscuring the issuesthe prevailing populist ideology also helps them to conceatheir own insecurities.

Mary Turner (Birmingham)

LETTERDear Solidarity,In your editorial last issue you said " ..there is no question of there being anyhistoric reversal in the trend towardsincreasing state involvement in theeconomyand society in general, towardswhat we describe as state capitalism."(Your emphases)And-in the Same paragraph you refer

to the "World-widetrend towards statecapitalism" (again your emphasis).Other, less succinctly argued parts

of the same editorial imply to mymind that all the class struggle canachieve (if you can call it "achieve-ment") is state capitalism. A bit like,all the working class can achieve isa trade union consciousness?Is this really what you mean? If

so it' would suggest that the onlything for us to do is join the LabourParty and hasten the process. A fiveyear plan to "state-capitalise" Britainmight be worth considering - thoughwe could run into problems over"state-capitalism is one country". Then,with everything under state controlwe could start thinking about whatwe really want.If this isn't what you mean, I suggest

you make your -editortals clearer -for an organisation that claims todemystify, it was a pretty mystifyingpiece of writing.Anyway, your last paragraph stuck

out like a sore thumb. From whathad already been written in the edit-orial it was not at all "clear" thatthe "twin dangers of bureaucraticslavery and capitalist competition canonly be avoided through the completeabolition of commodity production,wage-labour and the state, and theinsitution of generalised self-manage-ment". (Sorry to repeat myself,but the emphases again are yours).Love,Gordon W. (Leeds).

REVIEWWILDCAT SPAINENCOUNTERS

DEMOCRACY 1976-78As with any other country ina stage of social and politicalupheaval Spain after the deathof Franco became a target forevery kind of left group or brandof 'trade unionism' seeking tojustify its existence and proveits theoretical and practicalbasis. This was true not onlyof the 'traditional leftists,trotskyists, communists, euro-communists etc, but also trueof those, who peering at theworld through red and blacktinted sunglassessaw the rebirthof anarcho-syndicalism in theCNT and the resurgence ofSpanish anarchism. This book,though not without its ownweaknesses, is something of auseful antidote.

For~wordto CommunistManifesto ... work offiction ... ClII ctaseesdescribed in this bookare purely imaginaryand do not re/er toactual classes ,., TheAuthors accept noresponsibility {'or(ost chains or forinjuries due touniting ...For permiS>ionto adapt as mus"co.lcomedy, o.pplyK. Marx, H"gfigateCemetery, Ne;.

.15'Wildcat Spain.: is a collection of

texts by sub/quasi situationistgroups such as 'Los Incontrolados' (TheUncontrollables) or 'Workers forProletarian Autonomy' as well as firsthand accounts of specific worker'sstruggles for example in the railwaysor at the. Ascon shipyard in 'Galicia.In the latter. sense it is a catalogueof 'behaviour that will be all toofamiliar to readers of Solidarity, of thedevelopment of autonomous workersstruggles and organisations againstemployers, bureaucrats and themachinery of the state, not only withoutthe support of the supposed 'workers'organisations'but despite them, in theface of their manoueverings. 'interventions','assistance', their physical oppositionand their COllusIonwith the state. Thedescriptive accounts of such struggelsand confrontations are probably themost valuable aspects of this bookand certainly a valuable contributionto our knowledge and understandingof post-Franco Spa,in as well as yetanother (if one were needed) illustrationof the international character of workers'autQnomy -. and its enemies ,in thetraditional left. including some supposed'libertarians'.

.But 'Wildcat Spain ..: also attemptsto be something more than a des-cription and attempts theoreticalanalysis from a sub-situationist viewpoint. As such it bears both the bestand worst marks of such writings. Inturn racy, often poetic, infuriatinglyobscruantist. witty. incisive. Cuttingthrough its unexplained jargon thereader does get to some real per-ception: 'One Rewritten false historywas anarchism. disinterred everywhereas an anti-historical and tranquilisingexplanation of the modern contestationof the state, and reduced to the eternalbelief in the return of revolt. It wasthe one which for obvious reason wasmost suitable in Spain then aywhereelse since it had once been a massivereality here, the local ideological formof the general alienation of the oldworkers' movement that in otherplaces originated from marxism orthe CNT, resurrected alonWlide thepresent proletarian movement as thejack of all trades unions for the lumpenbourgeoisie in search of ideologicalcertainties, this is the historical dustbin,collecting naturally the ecologists andtheir problems of waste.

But there are flaws - the tendencyto situationist jargon, a near glorific-ation of the 'proletariat' (a termnever once defined) and soundingly'suspiciously workeristl, and a nearfetishisation of assemblies as the formof working class organisation -;theassembly movement ... is the truerepresentative of the proletariat becauseit is proletarian'Pl, Yet 'wildcatSpain.: is a book worth reading ifonly to be selectively digested.

P.G.Glasgow)

In keeping with the current situatioisttrend in anonymity the book is avail,able from BM bis London WC1V 6XX.

_____________ ~__ .-.L

16

TUOSHOPS UNIONS

How did you start in the TradeUnion? As a shop steward?I was recruited into the

Union as an apprentice. Ithink it was natural. Myfather had always been activeinside the trade union. He'dbeen a committed socialist ofthe type particular to hisgeneration and I had naturalsympathies there. I endedup becoming a shop steward.From there I went further in toall sorts of trade unionactivities. I've got aconventional kind of tradeunion history I suppose. Shopstewards, branch secretary,branch committee member,money steward, delegate totrades council, executive oftrades council, area represent-ative for my own trade union,conference delegate, negotiationsat full time level having beenelected to that position,national executive election, Iwas successful therenegotiations at that level:involvement in trade unioncongress, I went to severalTUC's, I was involved in inter-union relationships - in factI had a special responsibilityfor inter-union relationships,nothing spectacular, nothingspecial at all, just typical ofwhat someone might do.But even when I became a

full time official in the 1960'sI had no illusions about thetrade union movement. I'vegot a saying - I hope it comesout clearly on the tape becauseits an original - the tradeunion movement representsnot the organised unity of theworking class but its organiseddivision. Mine has been aslow process of acquiring thatknowledge. And once you'veacquired it you see that thereare lots of myths surroundingthe trade union movement.Some of them have beennecessary to sustain the move-ment. You've got to believethings that aren't necessarilytrue to get you through. Takefor example the way tradeunions - and not just trade

unions - tend to celebrate~efea~. The way, for example,m which the miners strike of1926is seen as a great heroicstruggle, and it was. No-onecan detract from that - butthey lost. Its always aroundthe defeats, the sacrifices ofthousands of ordinary workingclass people that you builda kind of loyalty. And when itsbeen a case of people havingbeen prepared even to die forthese ideas its a little differentfor people to come along laterand say that perhaps they hadbeen mistaken. You've gotto be very careful becausethose people were genuinelyheroic but in not betrayingthem you've got to be carefulthat you don't betray peoplewho are around today.Another myth would be the

myth of trade union solidarity.We've got to be careful herebecause in all myths there isan element of truth. ' I canthink of many examples oftrade union solidarity. Therehave been acts of considerableself denial by people notdirectly involved which havemade a marvellous contributionto the outcome of someoneelse's dispute. In the majorityof case there is a markedlack of fraternal support. Thenumber of inter-union disputeswhich result in strikes andso on is a sad reflection ofthe divisions within theworking class rather than itsSOlidarity.The way trade unions

formally offer support to eachother is largely for comfortat the official level, ratherthan at any effective levelamong members involved in astrike.I have quite a number of

files on inter-union disputesand most of them are aboutfailure to support each other.For example we had a longand bitter dispute - 13weeks.The membership of otherunions - NALGO and NUPE- the:y worked on quitehappily, In fact it ended upwith members 'of NALGO

actively breaking the strike.There was a Labour controlledcouncil at the time and yougot the chairmen of committeesactively involved in strikebreaking activities. And theywere members of trade unionsin fact some of them werefull time officials of othertrade unions!

What about the function of themyths which legitimises theassorted bastards who wewon't name here who havemade their careers as full timeofficials.Well being a trade unionofficial...Yes I know, you've seen themat close quarters, much closerthan I have.Well they actually hate the

working class, those that Iknow well. I want you tounderstand that it is the onesI know well. I also knowsome full time trade unionofficials who are great guys.One fellow who's a full timeofficial of my union worksseven days a week for the~lass. He's got some funnyIdeas but his whole body andheart and spirit and soul is init. Its terrible to see . thatman being ground down. Theworkers he represents anddoes his best for still don'tlike him. No matter how hard

he works he still representsthat full time body which theyapparently hav~ got to accept,and all the deals and theformal procedure that theyhave to go through. But thesepeople. t~at I knew at a highlevel inside the organisationsthat I am familiar with, theyactually did bitterly resent theran~ and file occasionallytaking unto themselves actionsto defend .what they felt wastheir own mterests, and doingit without as much as by yourleave to the full time officialsAnd of course that is irksome.There's not a lot of point inhaving full time officialsmaking decisions for you ifyou're going to usurp that. Ifyou've got -3, full time officialsgrouping, call it an Executive,of a union that sits down andworks out the policy of theunion and some stllyrsods ina pub somewhere decide thatup.with true they will not putand they do something aboutit, well its very annoying tothose fellers who are workingat .it full time, and are beingpaid these good salaries.They're the professionals. Theyreally get all uptight aboutit, John. (Chuckle chuckle) I'mnot joki?g. In fact I've actuallyheard It said, joking or not,you can make your own mindup about it, but I've actuallyheard it said in my ownunion "We could run amarvellous union if it wasn'tfor this bloody membership."This was in respect of onedispute. They really weredriving the full time officialspotty. They just couldn't seeit from the rank and file ladspoint of view.As a full time official I can

understand why as well. Isit in my four star hotel infront of the mirror on thedressing table having pressedthe button for the waiter tocome up with coffee andbiscuits - I don't drink whenI'm working much, I'm alwayscareful not to, - and I sitthere looking in the mirror

thinking "Who the hell is thisguy slttingin a four star hotelhaving coffee and biscuitsbrought for him in Blackpoolor Brighton or wherever itmight be. Just a few yearsago you were just a scruffyworker." You can see how the.process of separation goes on.

I don't think it matters howmuch you are determined tostay with the rank and fileonce you start to inhabit thatofficial trade union area... Itsdifficult to explain it. Youhave a secretary and there'san office and a routine andthere are people who worktinder you and you're involvedin major decision making.You ride on high speed trainsand you're in the company oifast talking, smooth talkingbusiness men and personnelofficers. The rapport betweentrade unions and personnelofficers is very good. Whatthey say is "We're all on thesame side really. What wewant is industrial peace ... "You end up thinking, Christis this really so? And if you'renot careful...

"I object to the way wemislead our membership. Andwe, on occasions, seriouslymislead our membership. Andto satisfy themselves that theywere doing the honourablething they have what amountsto a collective think-in to thisnew situation, to this re-writeof history and they rehearse itover and over again untilthey're convinced that they'retelling each other the truth andthen they go out and face themembership, and tell a totaldistortion of reality. And they

do it well and the membershipsays "Christ is it really likethat?" They lose trackthemselves of what had goneon. I mean I've been tomeetings of our organisation,I've sat there and listened tothings being said on behalf ofour official leadership - and Iwas part of it - that simplyweren't true.Or they're so misleading as

to be seriously damaging. AndI've sat there quiet andthought "Christ, what sort of aman are you?" So I go backand do the conventional thing,the thing you were supposed todo, and I write a letter to thebody of which I myself am amember pointing out that wecould be said to be misleadingour membership. And for myvery innocuous action I get allsorts of hot coals heaped onmy head. An expression ofdissent can't be tolerated.r -would like you to makecomments on the issue ofcareerism in the unions, andthe kind of observations otherpeople have made on theintegration of the managerialtype whether it be in acorporation, in a nationalisedindustry, in a state bureaucracy- or in a trade union. Forexample trade unions have beenreferred to as 1he personneldepartment of capitalism.I think they are, sadly, the

personnel department ofcapitalism and certainly thatis true of the majority of thetrade union officials. There isa reservation there, some ofthem are not that way at all.I think the trade union is atits best among the rank andfile. They are often ignorantof the wider concerns thathave to be taken into accountand sometimes that's not abad - thing. They're notconcerned with overall policy,what they're most concernedwith, generally, is what affectsthem. Now I think a tradeunion organisation is absolutelyand I want to underline that,absolutely essential in a periodof Capitalism. There isn'treally any alternative at all.Butlliattradeuniono~tionhas got to belong to the peopleit represents. And I thinkfull time officials, certainly inthe way that they are-lncreasingly organised todayare no longer part of thatsection of the working class

that they are supposed torepresent. The way to preventthat is not too easy. But onetway is to ensure if you canthat all full time officials areelected. There are far toomany officials who areappointed. And those electionsshould be far no more thanfive years. And those full timeofficials have got to live ineconomic circumstances notfar removed from those thattheir membership live in. I'mnot saying that they haveto walk around in overalls allover' the place, But economicrealities do determine lifestylesubstantially. They've also gotto be insulated in some wayfrom this way that capitalismhas of subverting people. Imean its so nice. You'resitting in some hotel to discussthe latest wage claim, 'yOUbreak for lunch and theemployers buys you yourlunch, he buys everybody theirlunch I mean, a glass of sherrybefore you start, bottle ofBeaujolais, four or fivecourses and all that kind oferosion of the realities of theworking class. Now there'sno one likes eating more thanI do - and I love Beaujolais -but I think there's a·time anda place for things. Sosomehow the rank and filemust, if it isn't too late (Isuppose its never too late butit must be getting close to it)must reassert some controlover their own trade unions.There's no doubt that formal

structures such as tradeunions do inhibit any radicalsolutions to working people'sproblems. Trades unionsbeing a product of capitalismare certainly not a means forits overthrow. The wholerationale of trades unionismis the continuance of capitalism.1 think that whatever structurethere was inside a trade union~t would inevitably serve theinterests of capitalism. butyou could improve thestructure of the trade unionsso that the section of theworking class it representedhad its interest betterdefended and hopefully evenadvanced. Its a bit ambitiousbut at least you could defendthem a bit better.What further can be done tomake the unions responsiveto the needs of working classpeople?

17

While the election of officialsat all leyels would go someway towards changing theformal structures so as to getpeople involved who arecommitted to rank and fileneeds there is obviously morethan that as well. 1 thinkthe way that any trade unionis structured evolved throughits need at an early stage.What's happened is that you'vehad ill these last ten or twentyyears imposed on that a sort ofproresstonansm, the 'personneldepartment of capitalism'people with their ideas on howtrade unions should be run inthe interests of effiency, in theinterests of more rationaldecision making. Since theyhave been superimposed onwhat were evolutionary socialforms they need to be removed.Evolutionary processes are notenough. As these efficientstructures were imposed' onthe trade unions the only wayyou can remove them is byconcious decision. By knowingwhat it is you want to achieve.Now given that in a capitalistsociety trade unions areabsolutely essential I think thefirst thing the trade unionmovement has got to do is tosit down and talk about it. Howthat can be done, how the actualcarrbe done, how the actualthinking can be done is not tooeasy for anyone person to say.Each sectional need, eachsectional requirement tends todetermine the patterns ofthinking.1 would suggest that inside

my own trade union andunions of a similar kind theopportunity to start to think

MAY 14th. ALL OUT! of your minds.Hi there I This is your friendly DJ Lenny - the world's sure lookin' good through rna ros.tintedshades - inviting you to tune in on the Murray hours - the too good to hurry hQWS. Yooor TradesUnion Council is asking yooor union executive to ask yooOr regional committee to ask yooor area committeeto ask YOOordistrict committee to ask yooor shop stewards to ask yooo to take time off between 11 and 3- pub opening time cats - on that big cool day of action on May 14th. Maybe Jim'lI fix it as a nationalholiday next year. Yehl This is Lenny talking soft to all you revolutionaries out there signing off with aPeter, Paul and Mary number .

----~ --- ..--------------

18about what it is you are involvedin will not arise automatically.So it means, inevitably, thata small group who themselveshave a concern for the futurehave got to lead it. They'vegot no automatic right to doso but then neither has theDaily Mail which seems tohave some effect on the waytrade unions are run. So somesmall group of rank and filersare inevitably going to have todo this because I can't think ofany other way. Having doneit they are going to be involvedwith other groups of rank andfilers who are involved inSimilar tasks to try and getthose structural changesimplemented. What you've gotto see is what kind of structurewould affect your immediateworkplaceso that women andmen who are working togethercan do things which are intheir own immediate interestand hopefully in their longterm interest to have someimmediate effect.If you can do that in your

immediate set of workingcircumstances it follows usuallythat you can extend that andmake permanent the advancesthat you've made. So the rulesof your organisation need to bechanged. And that will mean,in my view, that you will movefrom the workshop, the factory,the supermarket - whatever itis - to some kind of regionalstructure where people for thesame catagory of employmentand with similar interestswould organise the rules oftheir organisation to makesure that the decision makingand policies make for animmediate response to theirneeds. Its some kind ofdevolution of power that I'mconcerned to see back to rankand file activists. I sayactivist with deliberation. Itsnot thought much 0'£ in thepopular press but as its onlythe activists who do anythingthats the group you've got toconcern yourself with.

Now the rank and file ... theactive people is what youwould normally have in mind.What is normally excluded isthe enormous uncaring massbut they are none the lessrank and file. And there havebeen cries for rank .and filecontrol of the unions comingfrom the Daily Mail and theExpress and the Sun.

In the faith that this rank andfile would be conservative?Yes after they have moulded

their opinion and would thenrely on them to vote in certainways. The rank and file thatyou are concerned about andthat I am concerned aboutis that section of the rank andfile that actually concernthemselves with the tradeunions. The rank and file whoactually work for the tradeunion movement for nothing.Nothing at all. They go outevery night, sometimes, tomeetings and swear and toiland for their free labour theyget nothing but abuse. AndI think its true, the Mail's gotan argument and the Sun'sgot an ar~ment. The rankand file voice is not heard.Dead right! They're toobleeding idle. Whether they

deserve to be heard is highlyquestionable. That idleapathetic rank and file voiceis nevertheless highlyimportant. Their very presencein the trade unions gives theunions great potential power.If you've got 80% of youmembership which doesn'tcome to meetings, doesn't vote,nevertheless by their contrib-utions and their membershipthey make the union what itis in terms of power. And Ithink that without the greatmass of apathetic membershipthey would be very sadlyweakened. And there'sanotherthing as well, if there was noactive militant minority therewouldn't be a trade unionmovement at all, because youcouldn't rely on that apatheticlot to do anything.H youdlvide the trade unionsinto three sections; the largelycareerist (but not universallyso) officials, the active minorityand the passive mass, which ofthose three sections does thestructure best serve? Myanswer would be theprofessional careerist.Yean. I don't think there's

much doubt about it. I thinkmy union is the for-runner insome respects. We've gotUniversity graduates who areofficials in our union. They'venever been shop stewards,they have no comprehension ofwhat its really like to beinvolved in a struggle. Nowyou'll understand when I saythis that I don't mean thatthese lads don't have a rightto live or anything. Its justthat they really don't have anappreciation of it. And to seesomeone in a full time tradeunion position without a scaror a mark on them, its a littledifficult to accept that theycould really understand whatit feels like to come homeearly and have the wife say toyou, "What are you doing homeat this time?" And you say,"We're on strike." Oh Christ. Godown to newsagents and

cancel newspapers. Prepareyourself for a long struggle.And have to go through thehumiliating process of goingdown the social security.There's nothing glorious aboutbloody strike action, I'm notsaying that at all but to seethese lads we've got in ourunion now who've gone straightfrom school to university intofull time positions, well, theyjust can't understand. Theymay have sympathy, otherwisethey wouldn't be there, yesthey're sympathetic people butthere's no real empathy.

One might presume they tookthese jobs not because of thegood prospects they offeredbut because they were leftwing.Yeah ... They've got some

feeling about it, they've gotsome feeling for the workingclass. They may in' fact beof a very radical frame ofmind though I'd hasten to addthat those I've come acrosshaven't shown much radicalthought, certainly nothing intheir actions - a gutless lot.

~---------------------------------------.,---.

\\\ 1/\

->

\\ ---,.--'

GOLD FOR ROBBO