L Ess Gang Plum Duffy

Scan page 5

BOOKS THE STALIN SCHOOL OF FAI New Park Edition €1.50 plus 30p p&p Rarely in the history of the trade union movement, can the election of a trade union leader have been received with more acclaim by the press, than the election of Terry Duffy as President of the AUEW.

His stock among editors, industrial correspondents and, no doubt, newspaper proprietors was as high as if they personally had had a hand in electing him (which of course they had).

The word 'moderate' cropped up a lot to describe this extreme right winger and avowed anti-communist. Most of the industrial correspondents linked him to that other 'moderate' , EETPU leader Frank Chapple, and also linked his election to the speeches heralding the first attempts to impose Phase IV.

The Guardian had lead its front page the previous week about allegations that ballot papers had not been given out in several militant arcas. Now it described the clection as **a famous victory" , not only for Duffy but also for the postal ballot.

It explained that the benefits of such a ballot was that members voted in the privacy of their own homes" (where of course they can shut the door behind them away from the terrible influence of discussion at work and settle down to the dispassionate analysis of TV, radio and newspapers).

The Daily Mail wanted so badly to tell their readers all about the election that they made it their main story relegating the butler who strangled his Labour MP employer to an inside page.

Robert Porter (industrial correspondent) began:

"A new and refreshing voice entered the highest councils of the British trade union movement yesterday..

"Mr Duffy, 56 today, routed left-winger Bob Wright, although Mr. Wright had the support of Mr Scanlon and the left-ranging from Maoists to Tribuniteswho organised a massive antiDuffy campaign"

Mr. Porter. who helped in no small way to organise a massive pro-Dutty campaign, did not say what policies Wright had put forward to deserve the tag 'left winger" or what attractive alternative there was for the 82% odd AULW members who did not vote for Duffy. Instead it gushed:

"The result was a victory for the postal ballot, as an extension of union democracy over the old system of shop floor meetings which allowed extremists to cling to power..

"Mr. Duffy, golfer, grandfather, Roman Catholic and former Desert Rat, made it clear immediately that the Engineers, Britain's second biggest union, will be at the forefront of a crusade to bring the whole trade union movement into line with Britain's needs in the 1970s and 1980s"

And in case any reader did not grasp that Britain's needs should be translated as 'capitalism's" needs the Mail spelled out that this included fewer strikes, continuity of production and cooperation with a Tory government.

Duffy showed what he meant the day after these eulogies appeared by sabotaging a call for £100 a week at the AUEW conference.

The former Desert Rat was already beginning to repay his friends in Fleet Street in the manner to which they have already become accustomed.

As Duffy himself said:

"I do not see any major changes between my approach and that which is now being pursued by Mr. Scanlon. I would have great difficulty in differing from his current approach"

THE BASIC WRITINGS OF T by Irving Howe. £3.95 plus 30p p THE TRANSITIONAL PROGI With a glossary 30p plus 10p p&y:

TRADE Pathfinder, 90p plus Available from WSL, 31, Dartmouth Park Hill, London NW5 IHR.

'ROTSKY Edited TION 'AMME UNIONS 10p p&p.

Scan page 6

parliamentary traditions PART ONE by Mark Hyde The three unacceptable faces of Charles / br Van Dyck The revolutionary ovement studies history absorb its lessons. Preration for current tasks rolves learning from at traditions-someng which is never aght in the schools and iversities of the ruling AS.

For every class interprets forical events to suit its • purpose, and this is shere clearer than in the • of the English Revolba of the Seventeenth tury.

But for the upheavals that * place between 1640 and 50. British capitalist pety, as we know it today, ud not have developed. Its foundations were laid that period of revolution, I war and turmoil. The axe ich beheaded King Charles tuck a blow for the estabment of a new social EI.

Dangerous The British ruling class, Is professional lackeys in : universities, does not like imit this.

I acknowledge that the tea: system did not always i. and was born of revolI. poses _too many Ex:ous questions. Thus English Revolution's i cance is played down in aficial' histories. It is • simply called the "civil Г: title 'Interregnum' lE etween Kings) is used Push aside the revolution=== ablican dictatorship of Ri: history begins again I sings return.

A :ammon impression left i ::omwell's Roundheads religious maniacs, cing a once carefree sappy people with and Biblical E=..ons.

Fun-loving Ite return of fun-loving mistress Nell mr. and all, then becomes a r::: deliverance.

Least of books and films : 5e:ted to boost such Is The portrayal of the d=: cause as the defence L rings wholesome and ::arred again recently be evision serialisation d= iiassie "Children of "en Forest'. 2 * must demolish the myths, starting from the firm ground that the history of society is the history of class struggle, leading to revolutionary explosions.

Over the years sundry university scribblers have devoted much energy to 'disproving' that the basis of the English Revolution was class struggle.

Religious feud?

Reference to the 'Puritan Revolution' has been used to pass the whole thing off as some kind of big religious feud.

Play has been made of the fact that members of the same classes fought on different sides-as if Marxism denied that individuals could cross class lines!

Attempts have even been made to blur the class questions under labels like 'town versus country' It has always been left to Marxism to draw out the revolutionary lessons of the Seventeenth Century.

In a chapter of Where Britain Going? written 1925, Trotsky out lined the "great precedents f ir revolutionary action" to be discovered in the English Trotsky saw a study of this period as vital to theoretical training of revolutionary working class leadership in Britain.

Against the reformist and pacifist notions of 'gradual progress' and evolution' Trotsky used 1640 to show that history moved through crises, class war and revolutionary leaps.

It is that which remains central today.

The Rising Bourgeosie.

For at least a century before 1640, a steady, overall transformation of British society was under way.

Rapid progress in trade, industry and farming saw the rise of an ambitious and enterprising middle classthe young bourgeoisie.

The merchants of the City of London handled nearly all the nation's trade. In doing so, they accumulated vast sums of capital which they were eager to invest in expanding industries, and in the mining of vital coal and metal ores-iron, tin and copper.

Cannon-founding, sugar refining and other successful enterprises needed City capital in order to 'take off' and expand.

Wool industry

At the same time, large merchants were also taking control of England's old staple industry-wool.

Under the 'putting-out system, thousands of small producers were supplied with quantities of raw wool, and then had their finished product collected to be sold in large bulk on the market.

In agriculture, heavy inflation had hit small farmers, but offered excellent prospects to those with the wealth and initiative to farm on a large scale and sell their produce at a price.

Over the decades the amount of cultivated farm land increased as enterp rising gentry took their opportunities.

Even protected royal The House of Commons forests, traditionally preserved for hunting, were cleared for agricultural purposes.

As trading with new markets and colonies abroad increased, the rising bourgeoisie (in fierce competition with its Dutch rivals) concentrated an ever larger share of the country's wealth in its hands.

Progressive

Without a doubt this class represented the most vital and energetic force in England. Social and economic progress depended upon it.

Yet like every progressive class, the young bourgeoisie found itself in conflict with the old monarchic regime; a regime which had, like capitalism today, outlived its usefulness and become a barrier to the development of the productive forces.

This conflict was the material basis of the coming The English monarchy, (from 1603 controlled by the Stuart family), did not wield political power for the purpose of ensuring economic progress.

Both James I and his son Charles 1 who took over in 1625, were basically indifferent to or even this, hostile.

The Stuarts' main aim was to uphold the existing system.

Parasitic

In particular, this meant looking after the inter ests of the parasitic nobles at and the traditional landowning aristocracy, whose main interest was the steady collection of rents and various feudal dues not economic advance Thus, while tew industries-such as gunpowder necessary for n tary adventures-were given ¡tate encouragement, capitalism as a whole was held back.

Capitalism meant rapid change; it meant new, previously lowly merchants becoming rich and powerful; it meant unemployment, population movement and social disturbance.

The monarchy, the court nobles, the aristocrats and all the most conservative forces in England feared capitalism.

Its uncertainty threatened their stability and privileges. Measures were taken to stunt its growth and defend the old order.

To some extent the poorer classes actually benefitted from these since they were protected from unhindered capitalist exploitation.

The appetites and ambitions of the young bourgeoisie were held in check.

Minimum wages

Thus, we find that in the Seventeenth Century, there was state regulation of working conditions and wage levels were fixed at minimum rates.

Profiteers were outdone by magistrates who bought up corn stocks, and sold it cheap to the poor in times of scarcity-a useful means of preventing food riots and disorders.

For similar reasons employers were often forced to keep on workers for whom there was no work.

The Stuart regime was of course not a charity, it did not love the poor and oppressed, but it sought to avoid disruption at all costs.

Profit making and the free flow of capital was restricted at all levels.

In many industries, guilds (organisations ot small masters) imposed strict rulrs governing the outputs and quality of goods.

The most successful businesses generally grew up in areas where there were no

Scan page 7

London in 1617- the sustem had cramped commercial development guilds slow down production and compulsory long apprenticeships-often seven years-to hinder mobility of labour.

Monopolies On the whole, industry was stifled. Professional informers even made a living by reporting on capitalists who broke one of the endless petty regulations.

But from the bourgeois viewpoint, the most loathsome evil was the system of monopolies.

Healthy capitalist competition in a whole range of products-from pens to pepper, starch to spectacles, buttons to bottles-was ruled out by those (usually courtiers with influence and bribe money) who had been able to buy, from the Crown, control of a particular branch of industry.

The sale of monopolies had countless ill-effects, damaging trade and causing artificially high prices as monopolists chased quick profits.

Seeds of Revolution It is small wonder that by the 1630s the contradictions of the system had plunged England into a sharp economic crisis which, though lifferent in many features from capitalist crisis today, neld in common its vicious effects on the lives and conditions of the poor, as well as leading to stagnation n industry.

While the Stuart regime continued to anger the bourgeoisie by intervening in natters of trade and industry, he class of wage labourers lad nothing over which to nake merry.

Price rises

l'or year after year price rises in basic commodities had driven down real wages and the state was too well becomes James I of England. 1604 Faced with Puritan opponents, James I warns he will 'harry them out of the land' 1605 Gunpowder Plot by Catholics against James I. 1610 Bate's Case. 1622 James I dissolves the fourth Parliament of his reign without obtaining supplies. 1625 James I dies. Charles I becomes King. 1626 Parliament refuses to vote supplies to the new King. 1628 Petition of Right presented. Buckingham, King's favourite, assassinated -widespread popular celebrations. 1629 Charles I dissolves Parliament. 1635 Ship Money extended to inland towns. 1637 Hampden's Case. William Prynne and other Puritan oppositionists are gaoled for life and lose their ears for attacking Laud's Church. Charles I and Archbishop Laud attempt introduction of Anglican religion in Scotland.

aware of the anger and resentment deep within the masses.

Joblessness, high taxes and famine were the hazards facing the poor, and misery was the result despite all government 'regulation'.

Harsh penalties were meted out to all who threatened the established order. Yet revolt was never far away.

In both town and country clashes with the feudal authorities took place throughout the Seventeenth Century.

Riots

1607, for instance, saw riots in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. In 1622 the wealthy folk of Gloucestershire lived in fear of mobs who attacked their houses.

The South West of England saw numerous violent outbreaks at the end of the 1620s.

In London, the growing criminal underworld only added fuel to conservative dread of murderous rebellion.

The landed gentry, who alone were legally allowed to bear arms, kept vigilant watch for all signs of political opposition among the downtrodden poor.

Repression, when it came, was often viciously barbaric. But the English masses of the 1600s were nothing like the modern working class.

Split up into day labourers vagabonds, criminals, petty tradesmen, varying types of peasant and small farmer, they lacked the cohesion, discipline, solidarity and culture of the industrial proletariat of later years.

Revolutionary hope still lay with the enterprising and propertied bourgeoisie.

for a whole period, the centre point of opposition therefore lay in the House of Commons.

For us today, it is difficult to imagine the wretched twaddling shop of Westminster at any time playing a revolutionary role.

Yet in the Seventeenth Century the propertied classes represented there sounded their resentment whenever possible.

While those entitled tO vote in elections varied from area to area, the lower classes were generally excluded.

The wealthy merchants and country gentlemen who sat in the Commons both despised and feared the great masses of Englishmen far more than they opposed the Stuart regime.

From 1603 onwards, when James I came to the throne, the bourgeois in the House of Commons did not look immediately to revolutionary Archbishop methods-they wanted nothing less than stir up the population.

They stood prepared to support the government in flogging and torturing rebellious common folk.

The young bourgeoisie hoped to win reforms through the power in its purse.

The Stuart Kings tottered from one financial crisis to the next.

The predecessor of James 1, Elizabeth, had left him substantial debts to pay off, and faced with heavy family and military responsibilities, he had to take serious measures to raise hard cash.

Even royal lands and forests were sold off so that the monarch could live and act in regal style.

Under these conditions the House of Commons was increasingly confident in its own economic strength.

Dependent

The Commons voted taxes to the state, and James was more dependent upon these than any previous monarch.

As royal spending increased, Parliament felt that it could go beyond its traditional role of timidly offering humble advice to the omnipotent monarch.

It is this that provides the background to the House of Commons' absolute hostility to any attempts by the state to raise money without its consent.

While the monarch could do this he was free from control. The fight against taxation without representation is a general feature of the bourgeois revolution, and as such gave rise to several major battles in Seventeenth Century England.

As early as 1605, a gentleman by the name of Bate refused to pay an increased tax on currants.

His case became a test ot the King's right to levy taxes without Parliamentary consent.

Bate lost-but the pressure generated by his case forced James to withdraw duties from some other commodities.

Dissolved

The issue was by no means settled. When Charles I came to the throne in 1625, the House of Commons had worked itself up for its boldest ever step.

It refused Charles the right to tunnage and poundage. ‹This was the normal customs right of the King, granted to him for life).

Charles' reply was to dissolve the Parliament which had taken 1 his revolutionary step. In n lany ways the political crisi s which ultimately led to civil war began decisively at this point.

With Parliament determined, Charles embarked upon an openly dictatorial course.

Money was required especially for certain disastrous military adventures against the French.

Wealthy subjects, upon pain of imprisonment, were forced to 'loan' money to the To save money, troops of soldiers were compulsorily John Hampden billetted on private houses at the owners' expense.

And in the uproar that followed such acts many southern and western counties were placed under martial law (taking control out of the hands of the Justices of the Peace who were mostly favourable to Parliament).

These measures by no means cowed Parliament. When the third Parliament of Charles reign was finally convened in 1628 its mood was more intransigent than ever.

Petition

The Commons presented the King with the famous Petition of Right, with its demands for an end to forced loans, arbitrary taxation, imprisonment without trial, martial law and forced billeting.

The young bourgeoisie and its allies in the country gentry had made a bold attempt to politically assert itself.

King Charles, desperate for Parliamentary finance and hopeful of easing the charged atmosphere, accepted the Petition of Right.

But the problem could not be solved in this way. The consistent application of the demands and ideas of the Petition would have led to the complete subordination of the Court to the Commons -in a sense to the dictatorship of the young bourgeoisie through Parliament over the old landed ruling class and its monarchy.

No ruling class would easily concede its right rule.

Thus, Charles continued to raise tunnage and poundage unilaterally, claiming the term 'such like charge' in the THAME Petition did not apply to ::. This breach of faith was really the final straw.

The House of Commons erupted when, in 1629. the King attempted to dissolve it again -just as it was moving in support of merchants who refused to pay the 'unconstitutional' tunnage and poundage.

Relations irrevocably collapsed as the Speaker (chairman) was forcibly held down in his chair so that proceedings could continue.

The radical resolutions passed that day did not prevent the dissolution, nor the arrest of important leaders like Sir John Eliot and Benjamin Valentine, but they signified something much greater-the Commons, even for a brief moment had asserted its right to proceed as an independent body. totally irrespective of the wishes of the King.

Charles I certainly learnt from this. He did not call another Parliament for eleven years.

But the problem finance could not dismissed as easily.

The methods used during the 'eleven years' tyranny" were really of use to neither man nor beast-inadequate cash was raised and the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the state sharpened.

Fund raising schemes were at best absurd. (Titles were sold to all men with an income over £40 per annum; those who refused to buy were fined!).

At worst they were profoundly reactionary. Ancient royal forest rights were suddenly reasserted with • vengeance, and fines imposed upon all who had cleared such landto expand farming. Enclosers of land were also fined.

The most celebrated example of bourgeois resistance was over ship money.

Ship money

This tax, originally levied on ports, was extended to all towns.

John Hampden (a cousin of Oliver Cromwell) refused to pay. He was not a poor man, nor did he object to the need for ships to defend the Kingdom.

But, as with his refusal to pay a forced loan ten years earlier (1627) Hampden stood out on principle against arbitrary taxation.

The government only managed to convict Hampden by a majority of seven judges to five.

A year later, refusal to pay ship money was almost a fashion. It was 1638; the pre-revolutionary drama was drawing to a close.

Continued

Scan page 8

'STAVISKY' directed by Alain Resnais, reviewed by Tony Richardson.

Fa::

In a film whose repeated and baffling "flashback" sequences made the story virtually unintelligible, the most successful device employed in Stavisky was the use of parallel themes which finally converged in the final scenes.

One theme was the career of the film's subject, crookspeculator Stavisky, played brilliantly by Jean-Paul Belmondo.

He epitomises finance capital which starts from nothing and builds extravagant structures on the quicksand of credit.

Stavisky, massively in debt is seen continuing to gamble huge sums in order to preserve the outward appearance of prosperity and maintain his credit.

His only work' consists of crooked bank deals and the use of his Swiss bank account to assist fascist arms shipments to Spain.

But Stavisky's position is covered up by the fact that on the payroll of his 'slush fund' are top French ministers, police chiefs and others. The information on his illicit payments becomes, in the unsteady atmosphere of mid-1930s France, a political weapon in itself.

When Stavisky is finally exposed the scandal topples the government, making way for a more right wing regime.

Stavisky, now in hiding, threatens to reveal his whole file of "slush fund" payments. But before he can do SO he mysteriously commits "suicide" . The film places a huge question mark over this death.

The parallel theme concerns Leon Trotsky, exiled in France. There are glimpses of him arriving, travelling to his residenceeven shaving. Finally the film makes the point that Trotsky was deported by the rightwing regime that was ushered in by the Stavisky scandal.

These flashes haunt the film, beautifully countering the corruption of capitalism, and exposing the speculation with workers' lives, the massive fortunes spent in gambling and purchasing the attentions of women.

Trotsky remains surrounded by high walls, and is finally deported for the 'crime' of talking to other exiled revolutionaries.

We would like to think that director Alain Resnais saw Trotsky as a force in this period and not simply as the ghost of the "co-worker of Lenin, founder of the Trotsky Red Army", reduced to the level of impotence portrayed in the film.

But it is clear from the film's avoidance of any of the events then taking place in the class struggle in France that Resnais in no way saw him as a threat to the rotten capitalist regime.

However the more serious approach to history in films does mark a progressive step. Readers are advised to take the chance to see its next showing.

----- pull-quotes -----

:Chrono logy- 1603 James VI of Scotland