Sep 11 2019

SCOTLAND’S SECRET SHAME

The issue of ‘sectarianism’ in Scotland has raised its head again following loyalists attacks on republican marches in Govan on August 30th and Glasgow city centre on 7th September. Whilst the attacks  made by the loyalists were on  legal marches, politicians and the media have  predictably fallen back on the ‘sectarian’ two tribes approach. This attempt to cover-up the central issue, the nature of Northern Ireland’s and Scotland’s relationship with the UK state, has a long history, as shown by the response of   Jack McConnell 

Emancipation & Liberation is publishing an abridged version of an article written in 2006 by the late Brian Higgins, which addresses the issue of ‘sectarianism’. The full version of this article can be seen on the Intfrobel.com website, where it was published for the first time this August.

(https://allanarmstrong831930095.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/scotlans-secret-shame-1.pdf)

______________

SCOTLAND’S ‘SECRET’ SHAME

 

 INTRODUCTION

The issue of religious sectarianism in Scotland has been raised by Jack McConnell’s 2005 Valentines Day Summit, and by the BBC’s Panorama programme, Scotland’s Secret Shame, on Celtic and Rangers, broadcast soon afterwards.  Tam Cowan has even (if unintentionally!) added impetus to this debate, illustrating the significance of the subject.  He invited Jack McConnell on to his Offside programme (BBC Scotland, 6.3.06,  a satirical rant at Scottish football and the SFA. He questioned McConnell about ‘Scotland’s Secret Shame’ by famously asking him, “What’s secret about it?”  Cowan 1 – McConnell 0.  More seriously, we have UEFA making a bizarre ruling over Rangers supporters’ sectarian behaviour, at the Championship League matches against Villareal.  They initially washed their hands by declaring such behaviour to be “related to a social problem in Scotland”!

 

PART ONE

THE KICK-OFF

1. SCOTLAND’S SECRET SHAME – BRITAIN’S POLITICAL BLAME!

Scotland’s secret shame – No, we’re not talking about the nominal Scotsman, Fettes-educated liar and mass murderer, Tony Blair; nor his right hand man, Scotbrit Brown, who together stole last May’s General Election with only 36% of the vote.  This is about a burning political and social issue, which has too often been neglected in the past and needs to be addressed by socialist republicans in Scotland and further afield today and tomorrow.

Sectarianism and bigotry are very controversial issues in Scotland.  They were given a very high political profile with Jack McConnell’s Valentines Day Summit in 2005.  He mainly laid the blame for these problems at the door of Celtic and Rangers football clubs and their supporters.  Sectarianism and bigotry in Scotland were also given a Britain-wide media prominence in the BBC’s Panorama programme, Scotland’s Secret Shame, shown soon after, on February 27th.

 

‘JACK OF HEARTS’ VALENTINES DAY ‘LOVE-IN’

McConnell chose a good day to massacre the truth!  There were some very strange bedfellows around the table at the Valentines Day Summit.  Yet this only shows that a British-wide consensus and political popular front exists around some very false notions of sectarianism and bigotry.

This is highlighted by the most the recent and prominent campaign in the field – ‘Nil by Mouth’.  They make the same mistake in attributing these evils to Rangers and Celtic football clubs and their supporters.

The press also takes this line, particularly tabloids like the Daily Record.  One moment they are piously pronouncing against sectarianism.  Then the next, they use Celtic and Rangers to fan the flames of bigotry, often through the use of lurid and screaming headlines.  They rarely let the truth get in the way of a ‘good’ sectarian story, particularly before and after matches at Parkhead and Ibrox. The result of this is to make the problem appear to be a ‘sporting’ rather than a serious socio-political issue. This lets the politicians off the hook and this is no accident.

 

THE BBC’S SCOTLAND’S SECRET SHAME AND BLAME GAME!

BBC’s Panorama programme went Britain-wide.  It made Scotland look like a sectarian hellhole, little different from Northern Ireland.  Therefore, how lucky Scotland is to be part of the Great British Union!  The Scottish Parliament can take heart from the less sectarian atmosphere in England and get the support of a sympathetic and understanding Westminster government, under the paternalistic leadership of Tony Blair and New Labour!

Once again, this programme saw the main problem as lying in the working class and Celtic and Rangers supporters, in particular.  However, it did also mention certain links with Ireland!  But it didn’t follow this through.  Instead, the journalist, Graham Spiers, showed a middle class prejudice (which is quite common) by branding Rangers and Celtic supporters as “uneducated`”.  What he really means is there are not many university-educated chaps like him among the ‘lower orders’.  He forgets that the working class is ‘educated’ by middle class, press, television and radio hacks like him steeped in class bigotry and prejudice.  They resort to finger-pointing to disguise their own role in all this.

One unintentional moment of light (blue) relief in the programme was provided by a Rangers Director.  He gave us the new football phenomenon – “the ninety minute bigot”!  Just as ridiculously, we ask, “What if the game goes into extra time!”  The programme’s title also begs the question, “What is secret about the problem?”  – only its true causes.  But on the real causes of bigotry the programme did little to enlighten us.

____________________________________

2. FOOTBALL IS A POLITICAL DIVERSION – ‘RELIGIOUS’ SECTARIANISM AND BIGOTRY ARE NOT THE REAL PROBLEM

The British establishment and its media use football as a smokescreen to hide the real causes of sectarian strife and bigotry in Scotland.  The existence of Celtic and Rangers football clubs and their supporters may appear to be the most visible embodiment of sectarianism and bigotry in Scotland.  However, they are but the expression of a deeper and more widespread problem.

Scotland has indeed had a past marred by religious sectarianism and bigotry. As recently as the 1920’s the Church of Scotland took a bigoted and racist stance against Irish Catholic immigrants.  There were mass Protestant anti-Catholic parties in both Glasgow and Edinburgh in the 1930s.  The Orange Order then had a solid base of support within the Church of Scotland and the Tory Party was linked to the Ulster Unionist Party.  There has been job discrimination against Catholics in quite a number of areas, particularly shipbuilding. Some of these attitudes still (ma)linger on in Scottish society.

Nevertheless, loyalist unionism never came to dominate Scottish politics as it did in Northern Ireland. The Labour Party in Scotland was always open to Catholics. The Labour Party won control of many Scottish councils, including the largest, Glasgow.  It has also formed seven British governments since 1945. This meant that Catholics had avenues of economic, social and political advance, which certainly didn’t exist in Northern Ireland.

Scotland has no gerrymandered Protestant and Catholic ghettoes.  The Orange Order has no significant representation in the Scottish Parliament or base of support in the Church of Scotland. The Tory Party has long broken its direct links with the Ulster Unionist Party and has fielded Catholic candidates, aiming to get the Catholic middle class vote.  Scotland has had a Scottish Secretary, Helen Liddell, from a Catholic background; so indeed is the current First Minister’s wife, Bridget McConnell. Even Rangers now field Catholic players.

It is a misrepresentation of reality, to lump together the following as examples of an ongoing religious sectarianism with its roots in Scotland’s Presbyterian past:- the undoubted and sometimes shocking violence that occurs around ‘Old Firm’ matches; the demand for official permission for Irish republican marches; the intimidation associated with the Orange marching season; and the unsavoury Scotland/Northern Ireland loyalist links, highlighted by Johnny Adair’s current residency here.  The songs celebrated at either end of an ‘Old Firm’ game are neither psalms nor hymns. The flags being waved are ‘national’ not denominational.

 

 THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM – THE BRITISH STATE’S ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER IRELAND

There has been a huge decline in religious influence on the state in Scotland. The numbers identifying with the major Christian denominations and attending their churches, especially the Church of Scotland, has continued to decline.  You have to look elsewhere to see why so-called ‘sectarian’ strife is still to be found in Scotland.  The root cause lies in continued British rule over Northern Ireland. Scotland and (Northern) Ireland have long had close economic and social links. Irish tenant farmers and later, workers (both Catholic and Protestant), came to Scotland from Ireland looking for jobs.  Some of the divisions and conflicts over national identity have been imported over here. The Orange Order is one organisation which was imported from the north of Ireland to Scotland.  It has been a central and continuous influence in promoting sectarianism and trying to maintain Protestant privilege.  It still wants the UK to be an officially Protestant state with a Protestant monarch.

The British state has actively promoted sectarian division in Northern Ireland, in order to maintain its control.   Sectarianism is designed to pit Protestant against Catholic, and worker against worker.  In the past it split the Irish-Irish from the Irish-British; today it tries to sustain a division between the Irish and the Ulster-British.  What we are seeing in Northern Ireland is a national struggle, not a religious struggle.

The most advanced element in the struggle to create a united Irish nation, has always upheld the original republican demand for the unity of ‘Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter’.  This is anti-sectarian by definition.  The most reactionary element today defines itself as Ulster-British, an identity which only includes Protestants, and is therefore sectarian by definition.  This Ulster-Britishness can only be maintained by the continued partition of Ireland; the continued occupation of the north by the British army; a loyalist statelet, police force and militia; a loyalist paramilitary reserve; and the continuous celebration of Orange triumphalism.

Yet, despite loyalism’s somewhat embarrassing public image, it still provides part of the forces necessary to maintain British rule.  British Direct Rule and military occupation were not enough to suppress the Irish republican opposition.  And, despite some woolly-minded and sentimental thinking, the British state has no intention of giving up control of ‘The Six Counties’.  To do so, would be to signal to the world, the weakness of British imperialism and the likely end of the UK itself.

 

OFFICIAL ANTI-SECTARIAN CAMPAIGN PART OF BRITISH STATE’S STRATEGY TO MAINTAIN UNIONIST CONTROL THROUGHOUT THE UK

The timing of the Establishment’s newfound concern with the problem of “religious sectarianism and bigotry” in Scotland is also significant.  For most of the period of Ireland’s struggle against the British state, Scotland could hardly be described as Ireland’s ally. Scottish regiments could be relied upon to uphold the Union when asked to serve in Ireland.  As late as 1955, the Scottish Unionist Party (then still linked to the Ulster Unionists) could win over 50% of the vote.

Many Catholics, in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, saw the wider British state as a possible ally.  This state might be able to contain the official loyalist unionism found in Northern Ireland and the unofficial, but nevertheless, still menacing loyalist unionism found in the Central Belt of Scotland.  The Labour Party enjoyed massive support amongst Catholics in Scotland because it was seen to be both anti-sectarian and liberal unionist.  The British state also had greater resources to address the economic and social problems, which affected the Catholic working class particularly badly in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

However, with the decline of the British Empire, the UK’s continued slide in the world’s economic league, and the cutbacks in the British welfare state, support for the Union and a British national identity have declined sharply in Scotland.  Republican sentiment has grown, particularly since the 1980s.  The British state has had to undergo extensive constitutional change to try to hold the UK together.  New Labour took office in 1997 committed to a New Unionist policy of ‘devolution-all-round’, for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Each devolved assembly is meant to take responsibility for maintaining the Union in its own territory, in return for some local legislative or administrative autonomy.  By far the biggest problem facing the UK state has been the setting-up of a stable regime in Northern Ireland.  The very purpose of that statelet’s continued existence has been to buttress Ulster Unionist/Protestant supremacy, as a guarantor for the continued Union.

Ever since the Civil Rights Struggle, events in Northern Ireland have found an echo in Scotland, amongst both Irish republican and nationalist supporters and amongst loyalist and Orange Order supporters.  Now, however, there is a British-backed ‘pacification process’ in place, highlighted by the Good Friday Agreement.  But the UK government has failed to get its central building block in place – a power-sharing Executive leading a reformed Stormont.  Therefore, the Scottish Executive has been given the task of quarantining Scotland from any political repercussions over here. This is why, McConnell is portraying the continued ‘troubles’ over here, as an issue of sectarianism and bigotry rooted in Scotland’s religious history, in general, and Rangers and Celtic Football Clubs, in particular.

 

 NEW LAWS AGAINST SECTARIANISM TARGET THE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION

Since the Valentines Day Summit, the Scottish Executive has passed new laws. These allow the police to target clubs and pubs displaying ‘sectarian’ material.  This has led to a number of traditional Irish pubs having posters showing the Hunger Strikers removed. None of the removed material attacks Protestants. This shows the hollowness of the official claims to be combating religious sectarianism and bigotry.  The targets of the official clampdown are Irish republican symbols of resistance to British occupation and rule.

Revolutionary republicans and communists reject the ‘plague on both your houses’, it’s a ‘tribal war’, or ‘it’s all due to football’ approach to the issue of sectarianism and bigotry in Scotland.  This is the approach adopted by the British Unionist politicians and the liberal media which bows to their agenda.  It is an approach which disguises the political reality, both in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The pretence of dealing equally with ‘two warring tribes’ is highlighted by the orchestrated media hounding of Republicans in Northern Ireland.  They have not been responsible for a single attack on British state forces, loyalists or Protestants in Northern Ireland since the second 1997 Ceasefire.  In the meantime, loyalists have killed innocent Catholics and Protestants, mounted viciously sectarian campaigns around the annual Drumcree march, at Harryville Church, Holy Cross Primary School and are currently pursuing their campaign of ethnic cleansing, directed at Catholics in Ahoghill and at Asians and others in South Belfast.  Even a full scale armed loyalist riot, directed at ‘their own’ police force, the PSNI/RUC, in a fit of pique at being denied the right to intimidate and harass nationalists in North Belfast, was handled as if it were a minor breach of the peace offence!

 

SILENCE FOR THE POPE – WHY?

 Organisations like Nil by Mouth, no matter how well-intentioned, ignore the wider context, when they seek official support for their opposition to ‘religious’ sectarianism and bigotry. Treating the problem as if it is religious in origin can also be totally counterproductive.  A good example of this was the official decision to have a minute’s silence at some S.P.L. matches after the death of Pope John Paul. The same press which promoted the minute’s silence then turned on the fans who broke it, accusing them of religious intolerance and lack of respect!  It is absolutely intolerable that a minutes silence was demanded for an extremely reactionary old man who lived in Rome and had no connection whatsoever with Scottish football or any team within it.

Given this official high-level equation of Celtic with Catholicism, Rangers fans could be forgiven for thinking that Celtic’s board, team and supporters are all lined up behind the Pope!  We doubt that any of the Parkhead players would subscribe to being one of the ‘Pope’s Eleven’ – they’d rather be one of Gordon Strachan’s!  Neither Celtic, nor any other Scottish team is a Catholic club.  So why the minute’s silence – other than an excuse to stoke up resentment and bigotry.

 

PLAYING UP RELIGIOUS SECTARIANISM – IGNORING ANTI-IRISH RACISM

Funnily enough, on the occasion when real bigotry and anti-Irish racism are blatantly on display, the same media ignores its significance.  The hounding of Celtic’s Portadown born Irish Catholic player, Neil Lennon, on and off the pitch, by loyalist bigots, is a disgrace. He is also subjected to vile anti-Irish racist abuse at most grounds he plays at.  None of this is ever officially reported or campaigned against in Scotland.  However, following the cause to its roots, would not take you to Scotland’s old Presbyterian religious sectarianism.  It would take you to Portadown, that ‘Little Rock’ in Ulster and the festering sore which is the product of continued British rule in Northern Ireland.  This is not something the Scottish establishment and mainstream media want to highlight!

Anti-Irish racism is not even recognised as a problem in Scotland. Indeed, it is tolerated.Tam Cowan, who is about as funny as a boil on the arse, sometimes uses his Wednesday column in the Daily Record to crack anti-Irish jokes.  Therefore, the official (and hypocritical and limited) anti-racist campaigns show their own blind spot.  Whereas British imperial power has retreated from Asia, Africa and the West Indies, it has no intention of finally abandoning its first colony, so anti-Irish racism still has its uses over here.

The real divide is not a religious one between Protestant and Catholic, but a political one between British unionist and Irish republican.  Many loyalist bigots find it difficult to understand the difference between Irish republicanism and Catholicism, infamously hating ‘Fenian bastards’.  Yet the nineteenth century Irish Fenian Brotherhood included both Catholics and Protestants and was strongly opposed by the Catholic hierarchy.  Of course, it is very much in the interests of the British establishment to portray a national democratic struggle as a religious sectarian squabble.

_______________________________________________

3. THE BRITISH STATE IS OPPRESSIVE AND DIVISIVE

There are those on the revolutionary Left who maintain that the formation of the British state was a liberating and progressive development.  It led to the Industrial Revolution and a united British working class.  We profoundly disagree with this.  There has never been anything progressive or remotely liberating (except for the ruling class and capitalists) for the vast majority who lived in the British state and its empire.  Just think of those slaughtered for opposing British rule and wanting independence. Remember those millions who died in the 1914-8 “war to end all wars” to maintain the British Empire and its class rule and extreme privilege.

Today, British trade unions are in chains, shackled by the most draconian anti-union laws in Europe.  Migrant workers and asylum seekers are harassed by British officials and locked up in British detention centres.  Travelling people are hounded around Britain and working class youths are subjected to vilification, curfews and ASBOs.  Ask any of these people how ‘progressive‘ the British state is.

 

RELIGIOUS STRIFE AND VIOLENCE NOTHING NEW

Religious strife, and sometimes, extreme violence between Catholics and Protestants, is nothing new in these islands, nor indeed Europe and elsewhere. Such strife was a fact of life long before Celtic and Rangers were founded.  Catholics and Protestants found themselves on different sides in political battles in the past.  The Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 led to another attempt to achieve centralized political control of these islands.  One area where resistance was particularly strong, was in the clan-based Gaelic (and Catholic) social order in Ulster.  King James, acting on behalf of both the English and Scottish ruling classes, transplanted largely Lowland Scots Protestant settlers in this area to counter the rebellious natives.

In the 1639-50 Civil War of the Three Kingdoms, Irish Catholic Royalists faced both Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritan Republicans.  Yet, even then, the most advanced class elements were able to overcome some of the false divisions encouraged by the ruling class of the day.  The revolutionary democratic Levellers in England refused to go to Ireland to put down ‘Catholic’ rebellion.  They preferred class solidarity to religious loyalty.  We could do with similar ‘levelling’ today!

The 1707 Act of Union was used by the ruling classes of England and Scotland to cement a Protestant British identity, making it easier to unite the lower orders behind the British Union and to provide cannon-fodder for a rapidly expanding British Empire.  This Empire was based on expanding capitalist trade, agriculture and manufacture. Those pre-capitalist societies, which got in the way, were mercilessly suppressed and subjugated.  This led to the outlawing of much Gaelic culture.  This followed the earlier suppression of Catholic worship in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands alike.

 

THE ORANGE ORDER – DEFENDING PROTESTANT PRIVILEGE AND THE BRITISH STATE

By the end of the eighteenth century, these divisions were being overcome, when many Presbyterians and Catholics, and even some Anglicans, in Ireland joined to form a united front to oppose British rule.  The United Irishmen had the Protestant, Wolfe Tone, as one of its leaders. This new-found, anti-sectarian class unity led the British ruling class to give its backing to the newly formed Orange Order in order to uphold God and the Crown, Britain and the Empire.

In the past, the British ruling class found it convenient to blame all opposition to its rule on ‘Papist plots’.  The Orange Order has continued with this line, long after the British ruling class turned to other scapegoats – Jacobins, Bolsheviks, or Islamic extremists today. Even when founded in 1795, the Orange Order’s knowledge of real history was slender.  The Dutch Orange, King William fought the Battle of the Boyne (the site is now in the Irish Republic), in 1690, with the blessing of the Pope of the day, in a European power game; certainly not to defend some distant Protestant ‘colony’ in Ulster.

The Orange Order, and the closely associated loyalist paramilitaries, have a history of instigating pogroms, or ethnic cleansing, directed against Catholics, republicans and nationalists, and those living in mixed partnerships and families.  In return for privileges in job and housing allocation, the Orange Order loyally enforced the rule of the British Crown and state in ‘the Six Counties’.  It was the British Establishment figure and Orangeman, Lord Carson, who created the armed Ulster Volunteer Force, in 1912, to prevent even a liberal unionist measure, Irish Home Rule, from being implemented. British senior military officers in the Curragh Mutiny backed him.

The loyalist forces were mobilised once more, when a large majority of the Irish people voted for Sinn Fein independence candidates in the 1918 General Election.  Over the next few years, loyalists managed to carve out that Six County political slum, which was ruled through Stormont, as a one-party sectarian statelet for the next fifty years – fully subsidised by the UK Exchequer.

Whenever there was a possibility that Catholics and Protestants might unite to fight against exploitation, the Orange Order and loyalist forces moved in, to line-up the Protestant workers behind the Unionist bosses once more.  This happened when Catholics and Protestants united and fought over unemployment benefits in the 1930s.

In 1972, loyalists once more showed their opposition to any liberal reform of the Union, when they mobilised the Ulster Workers’ Council (Catholic workers not invited) against the power-sharing (middle class Protestant and Catholic) Sunningdale Agreement.  The British government backed down surprisingly quickly in the face of this particular ‘strike’, showing no inclination to uphold the rights of the ordinary person ‘to go about their normal everyday business’!  Obviously, this particular strike didn’t represent a move to the Left.

 

LOYALIST REACTION TODAY – THE BRITISH FACE OF FASCISM

Today there are few jobs and houses on offer, so loyalist privilege consists more of the ‘historical right’ to triumphantly parade and march all over the political hopes and aspirations of Catholics, nationalists and republicans and trample these into the ground.

The Orange Order has many of the hallmarks of fascism in its organisation, politics and practices.  Father Alex Reid got it quite wrong in his recent attack in Belfast on ‘Nazi’ loyalism. Ulster Loyalism is not a nasty German import, but a very British homegrown product that preceded Nazism by over a decade.  Loyalism doesn’t need goose-steps and swastikas.  It has the lambeg drum and the Union Jack.  Loyalism has and will use all means it considers necessary to maintain its ‘religious’ and ‘racial’ purity, i.e. its Britishness.  The only ‘democracy’ it is interested in, is that which gives it an inbuilt veto to protect its privileged position within Northern Ireland.  It point-blank refuses to recognise anything which does not go along with this.

There is no ‘British road’ to real democracy and freedom for the people of Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England.  The example of Ireland shows the sort of allies and measures the British ruling class is prepared to adopt if we ever make serious moves to break free from their UK. state.  Real democracy (i.e. rule by the majority and not an elite class) can only be achieved by revolutionary working class struggle and unity.

 

_______________________________

                                                                                      PART TWO

THE SECOND HALF!

1. FOOTBALL – THE NEW OPIATE OF THE MASSES

Marx was absolutely correct when he said that “religion is the opiate of the masses”.  It was one way countless millions of workers and their families escaped from the hell on earth of their daily existence at that time.  They were led to look to a life after death, which would be heaven, compared to the one on earth!

Religion is still being used as a socio-political opiate in some countries. However, it no longer has the same influence or following in the West, particularly Europe, as it had in Marx’s time. But today football is truly global and supported by billions worldwide.  The majority of these are working class and football now serves a role similar to that which religion used to.  It enables billions to escape the drudgery, and in many cases misery, of their daily lives by going to football matches, or by watching it on TV at home, in pubs or cafes, or by reading about it.

Big business is well aware of this and has moved in big-time.  They economically control, exploit and market football on a massive global scale.  They also exploit the competitive nature of the game politically and use their media to pit country against country in a very nationalistic and racist way.  Just look at the press and TV when England plays Germany, France, Italy or Turkey.  Some British papers, such as the Sun, even have separate editions so they can play off England against Scotland in England and Scotland against England in Scotland, whenever matches between these two countries occur!  Of course, they then blame the fans if they resort to violence in response to all the media’s nationalist and racist hype.

Football has become a microcosm of the worldwide class system. Far from things getting better in their ‘free market’ economy, the rich clubs and players just get richer; whilst the poorer clubs just get poorer!  Even Gordon Taylor, Secretary of the English players’ union, gets £650,000 a year salary – so he too is big business!

Now things are so bad that Russian billionaire, Abramovich, who got his money by the ruthless exploitation of Russian workers, is the most powerful figure in English football (don’t tell us the FA run the game!).  He effectively bought Chelsea the Premiership title last season and is doing the same again this season.  Oh, how the Russian poor could use Abramovich’s millions.  Cue Mr. Murray and Mr. Desmond, the filthy rich, biggest shareholders of Rangers and Celtic respectively.

Multinational business has taken hold in Scottish football too, as can be seen with Romanov’s takeover of Hearts.  No doubt Lithuanian workers would appreciate getting their hands on some of Romanov’s millions.  (Where are the Bolsheviks when you need them!)  Romanov now wants to take over the Bosnian team, Celik, too – no relation to the Glasgow club!

 

CAPITALIST ECONOMICS – A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR CORPORATE HOUSES

Celtic and Rangers are both corporate businesses, the same as most other professional football clubs.  Like all big clubs they mercilessly exploit their fans.  The firms they employ to make merchandise, use cheap, sometimes even child slave labour.  The big clubs make obscene amounts of money from this. Some of the money goes towards players’ wages, but we never hear of big-earning players complaining about this. Isn’t it strange how football players seem to be exempt from being taken to task, or questioned about their social attitudes, or their political opinions.  Stars and superstars, in particular, are not judged by ‘normal’ standards.

 Celtic and Rangers football clubs are not the causes of religious sectarianism and bigotry.  However, both clubs well know that the existence of these evils raises passions which heighten the tensions and increase the competition upon which their profits thrive.  Of course, the club owners are not too concerned about this reality.  They aren’t to be found on the terraces and streets, or in the pubs and housing schemes, where working class people bear the brunt and pay the price of ‘religious sectarianism’ and anti-Irish racism.

Outside political pressure may have forced the clubs to sponsor official anti-sectarian campaigns, but these don’t address the central problem already outlined. They also know this is a political problem which it is not their business to address – and they won’t. After all, it will take a political and social revolution to change the situation and their businesses would go with it!

Even if a total clampdown on all the authorities’ perceived ‘sectarian’ displays, singing and behaviour was successfully imposed in the football grounds, this would not eliminate it, but displace it elsewhere, since football itself is not the cause of the problem.

 

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CELTIC AND RANGERS SUPPORTERS

Supporters of both Celtic and Rangers come mainly from the same working class base. Yet, there is a political difference between the supporters of the two clubs.  The British establishment is well aware of this too.  Its current anti-sectarian campaigns make sure they don’t tread on any sensitive toes.

The political parties in Scotland have largely abandoned one-sided religious sectarianism.  This makes it easier to stand above the fray and manipulate both sides for divide-and-rule purposes.  Labour draws its support from both mainly working class Catholics and Protestants, and the Tories from mainly middle class Protestants and Catholics.

Rangers supporters sing “God save the Queen”, “Rule Britannia”, of guarding Protestant “Derry’s walls” and being up to their knees in “Fenian blood”, and other such touching ditties.  Celtic supporters mainly sing ballads associated with Ireland’s struggles for freedom from British rule, including the more recent Republican struggles. They sing about those fighters murdered, imprisoned or deported for defying the British state.  Some of this is sentimental republicanism.  There is also a reactionary anti-Protestant Ancient Order of Hibernian contingent among the Celtic supporters.  The AOH tried to mimic the organisation and style of the Orange Order, but for Catholics.  Fortunately the AOH is very small and is opposed by all sincere republicans.

However, by and large, the potential for support for Scottish republicanism and for freedom from the British Crown and state is much greater amongst Celtic fans. Socialists know the difference between selling papers outside Parkhead and Ibrox!  And, if your paper has the title ‘republican’, you would only try selling it outside Ibrox if accompanied by a Citizen Army!

 

_______________________________ 

2. THE NEED FOR A REPUBLICAN UNITED FRONT TO COUNTER

THE BRITISH UNIONIST POPULAR FRONT

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, its anti-democratic Crown powers, its continued imperialist role in the world, and its state-promoted reactionary British identity, all need to be opposed consistently. From the extremes of Ulster loyalism, through the Tories and New Labour, to the Lib-Dems, there is a British unionist consensus over the need to defend the UK state. The SNP only seeks to give some of these imperialist institutions a thick coat of tartan paint.  That is why they defend her majesty’s Scottish regiments so vehemently.

Others, on the Left, such as the SWP, believe the British state can be pressured in a progressive direction, effectively making them part of the British popular front.  You are either for the break-up of the British state or you are not. The SWP’s sister organisation in the North of Ireland omitted to mention the presence of British troops in their General Election manifesto!  There is a very broad Right, Left and Centre, British unionist popular front.

This can only be countered by a Socialist Republican United Front of political organisations in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England committed to the defeat of the British unionist state and its Crown Powers, and to the establishment of democratic secular republics in each of these nations. Communists would be able to show that the only final guarantee of all our freedoms – national, religious and sexual – is the creation of an international socialist society which finally ends the capitalist exploitation which underwrites all oppression. Forward to real political, economic and social freedom.

 

A NOTE OF HOPE IN THE POLLS

People all over the world are fighting back – from Venezuela and Bolivia to Iraq and Palestine.  In ‘sectarian’ Scotland two recent polls reflected some of this.  49% voted for a republican president against 37% for a prime minister (appointed by the Queen).  In the second poll in the Scottish Socialist Voice, a staggering 17.5% of people in Scotland already support the SSP’s core aim of supporting an independent socialist republic of Scotland. You could start a revolution with that.

So let’s get out there and start beating the big Scottish socialist republican drum and drown out the noise of those drumming and marching to a different tune.

 

__________

also see:-

Allan Armstrong – The Making and the Breaking of the UK  State, chapter xiii)  The contrasting political nature of the effects of ‘New Unionism’ in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales at:-

THE MAKING AND THE BREAKING OF THE UK STATE

_____________

For more articles by Brain Higgins see the links provided at:-

BRIAN HIGGINS – A PERSONAL AND POLITICAL TRIBUTE

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Jun 05 2015

A STATEMENT FROM BRIAN HIGGINS, SECRETARY OF THE BUILDING WORKERS’ GROUP, ABOUT THE DEATHS IN QATAR

 

th-1

Migrant building workers in Qatar

I knew there had been many migrant workers killed on world cup sites but was severely and profoundly shocked to hear on Channel 4 last night that 1,200 had been killed to date while working on world cup projects in Qatar.
Continue reading “A STATEMENT FROM BRIAN HIGGINS, SECRETARY OF THE BUILDING WORKERS’ GROUP, ABOUT THE DEATHS IN QATAR”

Tags: , , , ,


Apr 09 2015

BLACKLISTED

Brian Higgins, a much blacklisted building worker and Secretary of the rank and file Building Workers Group, reviews Blacklisted, The Secret War between Big Business and Union Activists, by David Smith and Phil Chamberlain.

th

This much needed book is a powerful and always compelling expose. It is sometimes moving with first hand accounts by the victims of the extremely sinister blacklisting conspiracy conducted by multi national building employers and others against organised labour in the construction industry.

Continue reading “BLACKLISTED”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Jan 27 2015

DAVE WILLIAMS – A TRIBUTE

Brian Higgins of the rank and file Building Workers Group sent us this obituary for Dave Williams, a militant building worker and like Brian on the employers’  black list.

 

Campaigning against the blacklist

Campaigning against the blacklist

 

Recently I received the very sad news that blacklisted bricklayer Dave Williams died in November following a serious illness. Condolences to Dave’s family and friends.

He was one of the best and most principled trade unionists I have ever had the privilege of knowing and working alongside. I first met him when I went to London in 1977 to work on the Fairweather site near Clapham Junction where 550 council houses were being built.

Continue reading “DAVE WILLIAMS – A TRIBUTE”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Feb 20 2010

Campaign To Fight The Blacklist And To Support Brian Higgins

Last autumn, the official journal of the construction workers’ union, UCATT, revealed the shocking details of a Blacklist operated by The Consulting Association (TCA), on behalf of a group of named construction companies. 3200 named construction worker trade unionists are on the list. This was followed by an impressive article, Boys from the Blacklist, published in the Guardian, on 21st November.

UCATT General Secretary, Alan Ritchie, was quoted extensively regarding his horror at these developments and his opposition to the employers behind them. The Blacklist had been discovered by Information Commissioners Office (ICO), so he called on UCATT members write to them to see if their name was on this Blacklist. If anyone found their name was on this list, they were to send the files to UCATT, which would then do something about this scandal.

Brian Higgins is Secretary of the construction workers union, UCATT branch in Northampton. He felt that his name must be on the Blacklist and sent off to the ICO asking if this was the case. After providing proof of his identity, the ICO sent him a copy of a 49 page file, which TCA had on him. It dates back to 1976 and goes on till December 2006. As well as personal, industrial and political details about Brian’s life and activities, there are also a few vile smears which must be libellous.

On 10th January, Brian took up Alan Ritchie’s call to send his file to UCATT, along with other related documents and a covering letter. He awaited a swift response and an expression of sympathy and understanding, along with a condemnation of the employers operating the blacklist. To date all he has received from the General Secretary is a 25 word letter, dated 26th January, with absolutely no mention of the Blacklist.

It is abundantly clear that the UCATT General Secretary is seriously dragging his feet over this. If a campaign to combat the Blacklist is left to full time officials and supporters then nothing effective will be done.

We have decided to print an edited version of Brian’s letter of 10th January to address a general trade union and political audience in the form of an open letter.

Open Letter To The Trade Union And Workers Movement

Dear Brothers, Sisters and Comrades,

When the Information Commissioners Office sent copy of the 49 page file held on me by The Consulting Association (TCA), I have to admit, even I, as a very experienced, case-hardened old trade union militant, was taken aback to see how much information they had on me, and the extent to which I was spied upon. Furthermore, I have a feeling they have not sent me everything. It certainly looks as if the state had a hand in providing information for TCA’s database.

Serious anger is one of the main emotions I’m experiencing at present. However, I’m also very concerned, although not surprised, at the comment in Phil Chamberlain’s excellent Guardian article, Boys from the Blacklist (21st November, 2009). One effect of the release of files has been to question how far some union officials were involved in supplying details to The Consulting Association.

In 1996, the full-time UCATTofficial, Dominic Hehir, took me to the High Court in an attempt to silence me and those I represent in UCATT. He was unsuccessful because my supporters and I refused to be silenced. At the time, the then General Secretary did not try to stop, or even to oppose Hehir.

Furthermore, an ex-UCATT Executive Council member, John Flavin, set up a company to advise building employers not long after he was voted off the EC in 1995. Despite this, he continued to be a member of UCATT, and still is to my knowledge. Quite a few UCATT members, including the Northampton branch, protested to the General Secretary and the EC about this. Not so much a building employers’ mole as a big bloody big elephant in the room!

Therefore, it would be no surprise to learn that some UCATT officials could have been supplying information on me and others to the building employers, blacklisters, and who knows to who else. It is absolutely loathsome and repugnant in the extreme that there could be people in UCATT, and perhaps other unions, who could resort to such treachery and sink to the depths alluded to in the Guardian article.

It looks as if the names of one, two or more of these beings could be among the many names blacked out by the ICO on my file. Perhaps I should apply for the names of any union officials amongst these to be revealed using the civil laws on Discovery. I’d also like to see the file the state has on me.

Whatever happens there should be an investigation into this case. This should involve blacklisted construction worker trade unionists, and MPs, academics and investigative journalists with records of sympathy for the trade union and workers’ movement. If anybody is found guilty they should be named, rooted and drummed out of our movement in disgrace, If such an investigation does not take place, then the name of trade unionism will be tainted and sullied.

The Blacklist is an economic, social and political prison. I have served a life sentence and other workers continue to be imprisoned. In cases like my own, the Blacklist effectively takes the form of house arrest because of its effect on a person’s social life. My wife was also deeply affected and badly scarred. More often that not, she was forced to financially support me, and our two children, on her low wage as a care worker. This has had a devastating effect on our standard of living. To her great credit my wife supported me and our family unstintingly. She held us together when things got really tough – which it did quite often. We kept our dignity intact and just managed to keep our heads above water by almost completely sacrificing our social life. My wife had to take out loans, which we could not afford, since my credit rating was zero due to very long spells of unemployment. All of this is the direct result of the building employers deliberately using the Blacklist, time and again, to deny me the right to work and to earn a living.

Not content to kill (some would say murder) and maim on unsafe construction sites; and to super-exploit site workers through subcontracting on low wages, they blacklist those who dare to try to do something about this through the trade unions on the sites – mainly UCATT in my case. Through the Blacklist, the employers deny us the right to organise. As a punishment and a warning to other workers they rob us of the right to earn a wage and to provide for ourselves and our families. This is criminal behaviour and the employers responsible should be treated as criminals. The heads of the blacklisting construction companies named in the ICO’s exposure of the TCA should be jailed – no ifs, no buts.

There is some talk of court cases and compensation. Building employers must owe me hundreds of thousands for wages I lost, whilst they kept me in their economic and social prison. I am in favour of using the Industrial Tribunals to get some compensation. However, this on its own will NOT put a stop to blacklisting in construction. Surely the main objective of any campaign against the Blacklist must be to get rid of this vile anti-democratic and inhuman practice one and for all.

The campaign for justice must be taken all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. I ask UCATT to get myself and other blacklisted construction workers the best civil and human rights lawyer to help us to do this. I also ask that UCATT sponsored MPs, and others known to be sympathetic, are made aware of my case, and bring it up in the House of Commons, to show just how bad blacklisting can get.

Given the severity and lifelong nature of my blacklisting, now proven beyond doubt, I am willing to participate in a campaign by UCATT against the Blacklist and all that this entails. Perhaps brother Ritchie and I could share a platform speaking out against this. I could explain what it is like to be on the receiving end of this blatant and sinister denial and violation of human and trade union rights for so long.

We have all known and spoken of the Blacklist for many years. However, this is the first time its existence and practice has been proven. The blacklisting companies and those they blacklisted have been named and made public by the ICO. We must not fritter away this unique opportunity to tackle and stop the Blacklist. It can not just be left to those who will weep copious tears and make sweeping statements of opposition in public, but in reality will do nothing effective to get real justice, or stop the Blacklist being imposed on other site workers and trade unionists in the future.

We call on blacklisted workers in UCATT and other construction trade unions, as well as sympathisers in other unions, as well as sympathetic political organisations and MPs, to form a united front campaign to outlaw the Blacklist once and for all. We must use every means at our disposal, especially calling upon construction union members and site workers to take industrial action wherever the Blacklist is in operation.

How can we possibly succeed with anti-trade union laws and everything else arraigned against us? In February 1986, five UCATT members, who formed an organisation called the Laings Lock Out Committee, of which I was the chairperson, were issued with a High Court Injunction, under the 1982 Anti-Trade Union Laws (Tory then, Labour now) by the huge construction company, John Laing. This was to stop us picketing, meeting and even talking about the dispute we had with Laing over their use of the Blacklist to sack us, when they found out that we worked on one of their sites. With the help of thousands of workers and their shop stewards, who threatened to take what would have been political strike action if we were jailed, we successfully defied Laing and their High Court Injunction, anti-Trade Union Laws and all. So, if we, with the support of thousands of our brother and sister trade unionists could do that then, why can’t we do that now? It’s time for us all to take a stand once more!

Replies to:-
noblaclists@hotmail.co.uk

Tags: , , , , ,


Dec 03 2002

Letters

Category: Emancipation & Liberation,Issue 04RCN @ 2:12 pm

Dear Comrades,

I disagree with much of what Bob Goupillot has written in his article, Which route for political working class unity in Britain E&L 3. I sympathise with the reasons given for Cymru Goch’s resignation from the Welsh Socialist Alliance in the letter published alongside Bob’s article. I particularly agree where they write, We are unable to compromise our socialist republicanism indefinitely.

Therein lies the problem with Socialist Alliances in England and Wales. It’s obvious, even the SSP has problems with republicanism, as outlined in Allan Armstrong’s article, Republicans celebrate the jubilee, in the same issue. He states that Alan McCombe’s comrades in the ISM haven’t got the republican message despite Tommy Sheridan using the dreaded R word three times at the SSP Annual Conference in Dundee.

As a communist and republican, if I lived in Scotland, I would personally be in the SSP, because it’s the largest and most politically advanced radical organisation in Scotland, with any sort of commitment to republicanism, even if a wee bit removed from the Scottish Workers’ Republic at present. This said, I find it quite breathtaking that Bob can make such a sweeping statement, that he thinks all individual socialists and socialist organisations should be in the Scottish Socialist Party or the Socialist Alliances in England and Wales.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the SSP is a party or a united front alliance, involving the SWP and other politically autonomous organisations, it’s worth remembering and recording that, the Scot of greatest socialist republican and communist renown, John Maclean, refused to join the Communist Party of Great Britain, when all around the vast majority of revolutionary socialists, communists and best trade union militants in Scotland and Britain flocked to it at the time. Whether he was politically right in doing this or not, he obviously felt the CPGB was not republican socialist or communist enough and neither were some of its leading lights. So it is possible to be a (even great) socialist republican or communist, or dare I say it, a smaller organisation and not be in what might appear to be the obvious or leading political organisation or party.

Bob also seems to think that the centre of revolutionary political gravity in Britain is to be found in Scotland and the SSP. This scotocentric attitude is most clearly seen when he states, Again Scotland was in the lead, in reference to struggle against the poll tax. It was in the lead at one time because the Tories and British Establishment were afraid to try the poll tax out in Northern Ireland and used Scotland to test it before taking it south of the border. Many Scottish workers, people and organisations did a tremendous job of fighting and building opposition to the hated poll tax. But it was the Trafalgar Square Riots which saw it and Thatcher off in the process. It was a truly international achievement in which English workers and anarchists had a big say.

I think the centre of revolutionary activity, organisation and struggle is still by far to be found in Northern Ireland within the working class republican nationalist communities of resistance. These people are politically suppressed and controlled by a combination of left, right and centre pro-Agreement forces. They are subject to continual physical attack and bombardment by those from the most extreme reactionary force in British politics, Ulster Loyalism, often in collusion with the British state. Yet they battle on! These communities and their leaders have vast experience and are the only ones amongst the working class in the UK struggling and sometimes dying for republicanism and national liberation, fighting and resisting the British state, its army of occupation and its paramilitary police force.

Unless we, in the rest of the UK, learn from and link up with these communities of resistance, leaders and organisations fighting against the consequences of the Agreement, along with any workers from the other side of the political divide and build one big militant, republican united front, then there is no future for socialist republicanism or socialist republics in Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. No country, no people, no movement can do it alone.

The key to the British revolution (to coin a phrase!) and the socialist political unity of the working class is republicanism. This means especially the struggle, or struggles for republicanism with its militant political challenge to the British monarchist state, its loyal institutions such as the British Labour Party and the TUC and all its political supporters and left apologists.

Any and all serious moves towards this will need to be accompanied by United Front Republican Socialist Alliances, with the objective of forming Republican Socialist Parties in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It needs a federated England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales-wide umbrella organisation to link and coordinate internationally. Where the main political emphasis is on militant republicanism, this can only mean one thing in the context of the British monarchist state – abolish the monarchy (mind you they are doing quite a good job of that themselves at the present but need a helping hand!), the Crown Powers and the UK state and replace these with socialist republics.

This republicanism will provide the distinctive political cutting edge and must be very firmly attached to the socialist content of such alliances. Otherwise, as we’ve all seen and experienced, socialism on its own, with its many divisive political varieties and organisations, means all things to all men and women and whatever any particular individual or organisation wants it to. Debating and getting a common agreement and understanding of what socialism is, along the way, would help enormously!

There can be no socialist political unity of the working class in Britain or Ireland unless our class eventually struggles as one social force against the British state and for socialist republics in Ireland and the nations which go to make up the increasingly fragile looking United Kingdom. Only political struggle can unite us politically – one struggle, one road, one revolution, one united working class.

By the way, I’m no John Maclean, but neither am I in the Socialist Alliance in England. Republican Socialist Alliances, yes, but then I’m still a communist, a republican and trade union militant and not a bad one of each I hope! In comradeship.

Brian Higgins

Northampton

Tags: ,


Dec 03 2002

Rank and File or Broad Left

Category: Emancipation & Liberation,Issue 04RCN @ 2:06 pm

Workers’ Democracy versus British Bureaucracy

Through his experience in the building industry and other working class struggles, Brian Higgins (Building Worker Group, UCATT, TCT) argues for rank and file organisation, not Broad Leftism.

Introduction

I have been asked as a militant trade unionist and a committed republican to write this article. Recently there has been a rise in public sector militancy. There has also been a rise to public prominence of left-wing full-time officials like Bob Crow (RMT), Derek Simpson (Amicus), Mark Serwotka (PCSU) and of course, Andy Gilchrist (FBU).

In response, the mass media has whipped up what I would call a mock hysteria, conjuring up the dreaded 1979 Winter of Discontent (that’s Old Labour for you!); invoking public sector workers wreaking havoc with the economy; and using words like rebellion and revolution to create a political panic. This is meant to scare the public half to death and is especially directed against the working class and trade unionists in particular.

What the ruling class and their media are terrified of is militant workers rising up and moving independently, well ahead of these left-wing officials with their militant rhetoric. They know they have little to fear from these officials since in crunch situations, far from fanning the flames of rebellion, they make it their business to douse them!

My industrial background and current credentials

What follows is proof that I would not ask workers to do anything, or to take risks that I’m not prepared to take myself. This article is not some sort of academic political exercise. I’m a bricklayer and have been secretary of the Rank and File Building Worker Group (BWG) for over 27 years. For most of this time I have also been secretary of the Northampton UCATT branch, recognised as the most militant in the union and a serious thorn in the side of the General Secretary, Executive Council, full-time officials and the Broad Left.

We’ve been involved in leading quite a few struggles in the building industry and supporting others in and out of it, such as Grunwicks in 1977 and the Miners’ Strike in 1984-5. I’ve been arrested on picket lines, banned from the town of Wellingborough during an engineering workers dispute and from the Tooley Street area of London during the Laings Lockout – but I managed to circumvent that once or twice! I was arrested by the Special Branch on a building workers’ picket line on a McCarthy Stone site in Sutton, taken to the local police station and told if I did not leave Sutton I would spend a very long time on remand in Brixton Jail.

I was one of five UCATT members and BWG supporters who, in 1986, successfully and openly defied a High Court injunction brought against us by John Laing under the 1982 anti-trade union laws. This action was taken to stop us using flying pickets and meeting or even talking about our dispute. In reply, we stepped up all of these activities!

In 1996, Dominic Hehir, a full-time UCATT official and on the Broad Left, took out a High Court writ against me, in an attempt to silence me and those I represent in BWG and UCATT. Hehir got legal support from current prominent Socialist Alliance member and parliamentary candidate, Louise Christian. She purports to be a great defender of civil rights, but when it comes to workers’ democratic rights – that’s another story – some socialist, some alliance! As with Laing, I refused to be silenced and told him I’d rather go to jail than surrender the freedoms at stake. After a very successful campaign, which was taken on to the sites, Hehir eventually withdrew his legal action.

I’ve been very severely blacklisted for refusing to give up my militant trade union activities. This blacklist extends to other industries beyond construction. I’ve been smeared, had death threats, had hate mail and malicious and threatening phone calls – what a life!

In March of last year I was involved in picketing a large building site in Northampton. This brought all the other workers out and the site to a complete standstill within two hours. The action was taken in support of bricklayers and hod-carriers who had been robbed of their money by a subcontractor. They asked the UCATT official and me what they should do. The official said continue the negotiations, which had been going on for several weeks with no success. I said, picket. The picket won and so did the men, who were paid the next day. As soon as the picket was put on, the full-time official disappeared and has not been seen in Northampton since!

After a battle lasting nearly two years, mainly with the General Secretary and full-time officials, who continually tried to stitch them up, four members of Northampton UCATT won a truly ground breaking Industrial Tribunal Appeals Court decision last year. This established in British law the right of all building workers to 20 days paid holiday per year, whether on PAYE or more importantly, the so-called self-employed – the majority in the industry. So my credentials are very current!

Theory and practice – time for debate

In my 27 years of experience of the revolutionary left, Socialism, Broad Left and Rank and File have never been debated and clearly defined as to their meaning in political and industrial terms. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to stimulate and encourage such debate and hopefully to develop much clearer understanding and agreement on the revolutionary workers’ alternative to the Broad Left approach to industrial struggle, politics and organisation

It goes like this, Rank and File, capital R and F, to distinguish this from the everyday rank and file workers, is a revolutionary concept. Rank and File is both political and organisational. It brings together revolutionary workers and the more militant reformist workers to win meaningful advances. The revolutionaries have no faith in the very limited democracy under parliamentary rule, nor in the trade union bureaucrats’ talking-shop, the TUC. They see the road to working class emancipation in extra-parliamentary organisation and activity. Those, who still constitute the majority of militant workers, believe the system can be reformed in favour of the working class through parliament, the established political parties and trade unions, if enough pressure is applied. Rank and File involves a united front of these two groups in their specific workplaces, industries and trade unions. The purpose of this is to counter capitalist offensives including the current one and the inherent nature of all full-time officials to reach unprincipled compromises and to sell out on workers’ wages, conditions and jobs.

United Front – above all, independent

Rank and file organisation in any industry or union must have an agreed platform of principles and policies. These are designed to minimise difference and maximise agreement in order to unite militant workers (and where possible, others too) organisationally and in action

There also needs to be a more general Rank and File umbrella organisation with its own common platform to unite workers in struggle and to counter any attempts to divide and rule by pitting worker against worker, section against section, union against union, white collar against blue collar and private against public sector. Craft chauvinism, narrow sectionalism, racism, national chauvinism and sexism are the enemies of workers’ unity and solidarity.

But, above all, Rank and File organisation and activity must be completely independent of the full-time officials and capable of seeing a struggle through to a successful conclusion, in opposition to these officials, employers and their bureaucratic machinery.

Broad Left and the long-standing Popular Front Social Partnership

The Broad Left is basically a popular front between bosses, politicians and trade union officials. It is supposed to work in the following manner. The Broad Left, at grass-roots level, puts pressure on full-time left-wing trade union officials and politicians. They, in turn, will put pressure on other trade union officials and politicians, who will then put pressure on the more liberal employers, who will presumably put pressure on other employers. This combination is meant to benefit rank and file workers!

The employers still have the real power and invariably exercise this to control the others, so that they can pursue their own narrow greedy class interests. To maximise profits (which they must, if they are to hang on to their privileges) they must our curtail wages, conditions and jobs. The Broad Left could be correctly characterised as the Broad Right, because it is the bosses who set the limits to this popular front in
practice!

The Broad Left industrial strategy has long historical roots, but was essentially a product of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It is now practised by the Labour Left and all of the revolutionary left organisations of any size.

1926 General Strike and the inglorious aftermath

After the collapse of the International Revolutionary Wave in 1921, the infant
CPGB struggled to find a defensive strategy, toying with the notion of the united front. It wasn’t long before
CPGB’s new industrial organisation, the Minority Movement, corrupted this to an early form of popular frontism – leaving things to the union full-time officials. The 1926 General Strike was met with great enthusiasm, energy and resolve by the working class. They used strike committees (embryonic workers’ councils) to organise mass meetings of strikers, to send mass flying pickets all over the place. They turned the TUC General Council’s half-hearted call into a general strike from below.

Enter the CPGB who politically influenced the majority of best militants of the day. They came up with the catastrophic slogan – All power to the General Council. Which they promptly took and proceeded to have meetings with their partners in the unpopular front against the strike – Prime Minister, Baldwin and anti-strike coordinator, Churchill. After nine days they called off the general strike in ‘the national interest’ – they only forgot to join in a chorus of Rule Britannia!

The general demoralisation and blacklisting of militants that followed was devastating. Yet still the Broad Left approach dominated. The later triumph of fascism led to a further twist to the Right and the theory and strategy of the Popular Front emerged in its fully developed form in the 1930’s – to the immediate the cost of Spanish and French workers. In the UK the Popular Front’s industrial Broad Left strategy was further developed. They now pushed for the election of left-wing full-time officials as the primary immediate political objective and raison d’etre. What a disaster! The CPGB has now gone, but their legacy lives on and on.

Tony Benn- the doyen of Broad Left politicians

More recently we have the Broad Left holding up their prime example of a left wing politician – Tony Benn. He was on Labour’s National Executive to boot and championed workers’ causes and struggles. What did he do when in power?

When he was Energy Minister in Callaghan’s Labour government in the 1970’s he threatened (and meant it) to send troops into Windscale (now Sellafield) to break a strike by nuclear power workers. He also applied to use Crown powers to deal with a threatened power workers’ strike – again in the national interest. Once more Rule Britannia and hat doffed before Her Majesty – some workers’ champion.

Arthur Scargill – icon of the Broad Left

Even today, Arthur Scargill is worshipped and held up by the Broad Left as the shining light, the living proof, of how supporting and relying on a left-wing trade union leader, is the political thing to do. Also, woe betide anyone who dared to criticise him during the Miners’ Strike of 1984-5, or even today for that matter. You’re only allowed to criticise the ones the Broad Left don’t approve of. I dared in 1984/5 and do so again today!

The political and social significance of that truly heroic year long struggle was undoubtedly the most pivotal since the 1926 General Strike. How Scargill led that strike proves the correctness or otherwise of the Broad Left approach to industrial organisation and struggle.

It was in 1974, during the successful mass picketing at the gates of Saltley Coke Depot, that Scargill undoubtedly and rightly won his reputation as a fearless full-time union official during the Miners’ Strike. This strike resulted in the downfall of Prime Minister, Heath and his Tory government.

However, the class struggle never stands still. By the time of the 1984/5 Miners’ Strike, Scargill was the national leader of the NUM and Thatcher and her Tory government, backed by the NCB, the Establishment and the British state, were seeking to exact political and class revenge for 1974. They announced a massive programme of pit closures to provoke the miners and essentially to put Scargill and the NUM to the test. Scargill and the NUM National Committee announced they would oppose and stop all these closures and even force a few closed pits to reopen.

Given that closures hadn’t been stopped until then, these aims were politically quite breathtaking in the political climate of the day. Scargill must have known that it would take a struggle of almost revolutionary proportions, and at least the removal of the Tory government to achieve these aims. Yet not once did they make this a stated policy objective. Perhaps they thought this would be a byproduct of the strike, but these things are never accidental. It is worthwhile studying the Miners’ Strike in a little more detail, since it gets to the heart of the differences between a Broad Left and Rank and File approach.

Rank and file take initiative Scargill takes it back!

While Scargill and the National Committee were deliberating over what to do about the pit closure announcement, rank and file miners at Cortonwood Colliery in South Yorkshire didn’t wait for the word from on high. They knew exactly what to do. They organised and sent out flying pickets all over South Yorkshire, bringing the whole coalfield to a halt. Scargill called a NUM national conference not only to make the strike official, but to bring it under his control!

Realising they had to stop the huge Nottingham area, which was still working, rank and file Yorkshire miners took the initiative once more. They sent flying pickets into the county and soon Notts was out and all-Britain strike action was the order of the day.

What did Scargill do? Not for him Rank and File Strike Committees controlling, coordinating and spreading the strike. When a miner was killed by a scab’s lorry on a Notts. picket line, Scargill disastrously called the action off – at the request of the Chief Constable. This was meant to allow a cooling off period and to permit Nottingham miners to vote separately for the national strike which was now an established fact! Needless to say, with the pressure off, the mass media and the scab Notts. full-time officials all going to town, they voted to go back to work in Notts. It was mainly downhill after this defeat. The Orgreave Coal Depot was not as pivotal in 1984, as either Saltley Gates a decade earlier or the Notts. situation in the early days of the strike. Workplace mass picketing became the focal point of many battles, giving a considerable morale boost for the winners in each specific confrontation especially at Orgreave. Here thousands of picketing miners, dressed in T-shirts and trainers, were confronted by mounted police and thousands of police in riot gear using military organisation, tactics and brutality! In spite of the great courage shown by the miners, they were inevitably and literally beaten into defeat at Orgreave. The British state tactics had moved on since Saltley (greatly helped by training in the Six Counties), but the official NUM hadn’t.

They should have been as well prepared, drilled and disciplined as the police, with at least pit helmets and boots and something in hand to combat police batons and tactics. James Connolly’s Citizen Army springs to mind as a workers’ self-defence force used in the great Dublin Lock-Out of 1913. Dublin then lay within the UK – the Citizen Army is part of our shared tradition! Self-defence is no offence, especially against strike breaking police, state and government.

Even given the setbacks in Notts. and at Orgreave, the Miners’ Strike was always winnable until Scargill surrendered it to the TUC and Labour Party bureaucrats at their national conferences. The state, government and employers spent £7 billion, yes billion, to defeat this strike. The miners could never win alone, but to trust in meaningful support from resolutions passed by the TUC and Labour Party conferences – Jeezus Christ!

There was massive political and social support for the miners throughout the
UK and beyond. Much of this was because of the deep class hatred towards Thatcher and the Tories. The miners’ heroic struggle inspired our class and gave it a political focus. However, although massive, it remained largely passive. It could have been translated into militant political strike action to remove Thatcher and her government. It needed miners’ flying pickets to go to other workplaces in every town and city in Britain, with the support of the Miners’ Support Groups. It needed a general strike from below! This isn’t just clever hindsight. I was involved in the Northampton Miners’ Support Group and we linked up with the legendary Dirty Thirty striking miners from Leicestershire. I argued unsuccessfully for these tactics with the Broad Left leadership of the MSG and successfully with the Dirty Thirty despite the fact they were still much influenced by Scargill. For good measure, I told them to send a couple of hundred miners to Northampton and we’d picket the town to a standstill in a week. They believed me, but things fell on deaf ears when they went back to their leaders.

Workers’ Republic of South Yorkshire – nearly, but not quite!

Mass struggle always politicises workers and their families very rapidly. Republican consciousness was developing amongst quite a few involved in the ‘communities of resistance’ formed in South Yorkshire. Their villages were under virtual occupation by a paramilitary police force and almost daily army manoeuvres. Imagine if this had been linked up with the ‘communities of resistance’ in Northern Ireland. Some miners did see the link, comparing South Yorkshire to South Armagh!

Of course, Scargill was no republican and was not about to offer even a militant social democratic challenge to the British state. Like the loyal fulltime British trade union official he is, he went to the very loyal British TUC and her majesty’s loyal Labour Party Opposition to support him. The bureaucrats supported the miners as Lenin said, Like a rope supports a hanging man! After this, defeat was utter and inevitable. The miners had rightly and proudly been seen as the workers’ trade union vanguard The disastrous effects of the miners’ defeat are still reverberating today within the workers’ movement in the UK.

Today – more false dawns and false prophets!

Has the revolutionary left learned and applied any lessons from the miners’ defeat, or indeed from other subsequent struggles? Not at all – Broad Leftism still dominates the Left and, in the process, suffocates workers’ struggles.

Soon after, the Oil Industry Liaison Committee was formed to organise both the rig and shore workers, who had been left disorganised and disunited by the official unions. If workers need to create their own independent organisations in defiance of the official organisations controlled by the bureaucrats – so be it. Unfortunately, the OILC’s own full-timer, Ronnie Macdonald was also Broad Left. When rig oil workers occupied the rigs, Macdonald called off the action in the face of legal action.

A more recent example of a Broad Left official has been Bill Morris, General Secretary of the TGWU. When Liverpool dockers took independent strike action to defend themselves from casualisation and privatisation they won considerable respect and support. Like the miners they couldn’t win on their own. Support in Liverpool and further afield would have to be turned into more militant action by the use of flying pickets, with active backing from the many Support Groups. The dockers and their leaders knew this. However, they went along with Broad Left General Secretary, Morris, when he said the anti-trade union laws could be used. Scargill’s SLP, which had some influence amongst the dockers’ leaders, went along with this.

Another new messiah with old failings is Bob Crow. Has his leadership of the RMT made much difference? Obviously not to the bosses, New Labour or the TUC, so what about the union membership? He talks a good fight, but the railways are still in terminal decline, which must also apply to the conditions of those working on them. The RMT has organised strikes of sections of its own members, where they are called out for short periods. Some have been going on for over two years now. What about one union, one industry, one big strike to settle all the outstanding issues?

When Crow was acting General Secretary in 1998, he told the bestknown militant of the day, Euston shop steward, Steve Hedley, that he’d win his job back, when he was sacked during a national dispute. I told Steve, when he contacted me, he wouldn’t get his job back by depending on the official machinery. Unfortunately, he went along with Crow and he remains sacked. What a signal to send to the employers! Crow was badly beaten up by some thugs in a clear attempt to intimidate him into giving up his union activities. To his credit he didn’t, but this should have become a national issue with a nationwide strike called and spread by flying pickets. The employers (and state) would be told that if there was any more intimidation it would be met by all-out strike action and rail-workers’ self defence teams. Nothing was done – another bad signal!

Rail Link

About seven months ago, another full-time official, Brian Rye, of UCATT, was badly beaten up and hospitalised on the Hotchief Murphy site for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at Sawbridge in Kent. General Secretary, Georger Brumwell and his executive (also Broad Left) did nothing apart from involving union lawyers. The only terrifying thing about lawyers is their fees!

If any of us in the BWG was seriously assaulted for our trade union activities, we’d find the troops from somewhere to do the business. The employers know this. If we can’t stop them physically attacking union representatives what price trade unionism in the rail and construction industries?! Who is next? This is one immediate reason why we need a Rank and File organisation and a new Citizens Army.

Andy Gilchrist and the FBU a false alarm!

We now have fire-fighters being led out on strike by another Broad Left leadership, headed by another Broad Left leader, Andy Gilchrist. The fire-fighters voted 9-1 in favour of strike action to win a 40% pay increase – much the same as that the Cabinet awarded themselves. However, like Scargill’s earlier proposed strike to oppose all closures, this is a near revolutionary demand, especially when linked to opposition to modernisation – job cuts, worsened conditions and privatisation. Gilchrist bowed more quickly though under pressure from Blair and Prescott. The 40% was dropped to 16% without a vote of the membership. It now became a more sectional dispute with FBU leaders only claiming what some other public sector workers had been awarded (by selling hard-fought conditions).

Gilchrist must have realised the daring nature of the 40% demand and its likely impact on other public sector workers. To win this, the fire-fighters would have to have taken all-out indefinite political strike action and go for immediate support, not from the amorphous general public but from other public sector workers. There would then need to be a major united front public sector campaign for a massive pay rise for all and against all cuts and privatisation. Did Gilchrist not notice UNISON officials selling out their members’ wages struggles and demands (most obviously in the North Glasgow Hospitals Trust)? These workers would be looking for the FBU to offer inspiration and take a militant lead. Furthermore, did Gilchrist not realise, like Scargill before him, that this strike could not be won without opposing Blair’s New Labour government, so tied in is it with the bosses and US corporate imperialism? Yet when Gilchrist timidly suggested to a Labour Left meeting that the Labour Party needed a change of leadership – not the country a regime change – his Broad Left colleagues quickly abandoned him, passing the initiative entirely over to the government and employers. This at a time when the government is looking very shaky over its support for the axis of evil – Bush, Blair and Sharon!

Perhaps Gilchrist and Co. had begun to get carried away by all the media hype – that the bosses were running scared of the new breed of left-wing officials. The lightning climbdown, once more without any vote by the members, shows that the leaders suddenly realised their own rhetoric had dangerously outrun the action they were prepared to take. The tabloid press mocked at Lions led by donkeys – more like fighters led by shiters I think!

At the same time, Bob Crowed when he called off the ballot of RMT members working on the London Underground. This ballot had been designed to support any rail-workers refusing to work because of unsafe conditions during the fire-fighters’ strike. Crow invoked the threat of the Tories (and now New Labour’s) anti-trade union laws. So according to the Broad Left, solidarity action is only allowed when the employers and law permit it – Jeezus K. Marx!

SWPTime to take sides and other alternatives

Of course its no longer the CPGB which is the principal advocate of the Broad Left approach – the honours now lie with the SWP, the largest revolutionary social democratic political organisation in the UK today. Therefore what they say and do matters. On the front page of December 2002’s Socialist Review, there is a photograph of striking fire-fighters with the headline – Time to Take Sides. That’s the problem with the SWP’s opportunistic approach to workers and trade unionists, particularly in struggle. This poses the question – why wait till workers go on strike before declaring which side you are on? Perhaps they are asking the question of trade union officials but are too shy to state this! Funnily enough, the SWP’s own fire-fighters’ bulletin never warned the fire-fighters where the first sign of collapse would emanate from – their own leadership!

In public and in practice, what the SWP actually mean is taking the side of my full-time official right or wrong. This is coupled with continual calls to the union leaders and the TUC, which means, in effect the General Council, to mobilise and call out other workers. Last time they did that was in 1926 and they sold out in nine days flat, (nothing learned in 76 years!) The TUC threatened to call out workers in response to the jailing of the Pentonville Dockers in 1972 – but only because widespread independent action of flying pickets was going to achieve this anyhow. In other words, with or without action from below, the TUC General Council only takes the lead to take control and sell-out.

Peddling illusions in the TUC only serves to disarm striking workers by pointing them in the wrong direction, steering them away from self-activity and organisation by going directly to workers in other workplaces and picketing and calling them out in solidarity. This is the independent Rank and File way. It is the only way to achieve effective solidarity in today’s political conditions. When it comes to taking sides, full-time officials always waver and accommodate to the bosses – the question we need to ask the SWP and the Broad Left is – Which side are you on – the bureaucracy’s or the workers in struggle?!

The Socialist Alliance, as presently constituted, is merely a front for the
SWP and even the other current contenders for leadership follow a Broad Left perspective. This is also true of the more effective Scottish Socialist Party, despite a commitment to industrial organisation. I’ve time and respect for Cymru Goch, the Welsh Socialist Republicans, but their stand on Broad Left or Rank and File is not clear. I’ll probably know when they finish reading this!

Wildcat strikes – great but only half way there

There is hope! Militant workers have always shown the desire to combat sell-outs by full-time officials. There are the recent cases of the AEEU electricians on the Jubilee tube line in London and the renowned postal workers in the Edinburgh CWU branch, who are never done fighting their fulltimers. More recently still we have seen the action taken by the Glasgow underground workers in the TGWU and the North Glasgow hospital workers in UNISON. Some succeed and some fail in meeting their still limited objectives.

We need to understand that whenever workers go into struggle, they need to fight their full-time officials, locked into their social partnerships with the employers and New Labour government and councils – the latest form of the Broad Right! You often can’t get near the employers, and today, the full-time officials because of the antics of the Broad Left!

No matter how brave, militancy on its own is not enough. What is needed is a political strategy which can generalise the current more limited struggles in order to take these directly to larger groups of trade unionists and workers. This needs to be done completely independently of the trade union and Labour full-time bureaucrats. Independent not unofficial – the first proudly signals our control and determination, the second is the word scornfully used by the officials to marginalise rank and file members. However, the continuous attempts by full-timers to achieve total control, particularly when national strike action is involved, shows that they know that an alternative Rank and File consciousness is struggling to break out. Our job is to introduce this into the battles.

Most workers understand that the only place they can exercise real power is in the workplace, where they have some control over the means of production. But this can only be done with democratic shop-floor organisation with mass meetings deciding on how to organise and exercise this control. However, the state and union bureaucrats do everything in their power to ensure this control is never realised or exercised. They make use of the anti- (rank and file) trade union laws to remove democratic decision making from the workplace and to transfer it to the union Headquarters by ballots. These leave the General Secretaries and Executives in control over every aspect of union life, including the National Conference and especially the workplace.

We need to convince workers that all, especially important, decisions concerning wages, conditions and jobs; supporting other workers in struggle, are taken by a mass meeting, not decided by state ballots or laws. Once a workplace decision has been taken it should remain in place until it is changed by another mass meeting. All attempts to deny democratic rights or to subvert workplace control should be resisted. Workers in struggle then need to spread this action by flying pickets until they achieve their objectives. That is workers’ power in action.

The TUC – British to the core and the liberal wing of the CBI

Undoubtedly a major barrier to workers advancing and winning major all-out struggles is the TUC General Council. This is the TUC, made up of union General Secretaries, sitting atop their various bureaucratic dung-heaps. Oh how those delegates who voted in the first General Council in 1921 (the year the International Revolutionary Wave ended!), giving it absolute power, must be turning in their graves.

The General Council is a reactionary body in many ways – but what else can we expect from such a British institution. They helped the Labour government push through the draconian and repressive anti-Irish Prevention of Terrorism Act after the IRA’s Birmingham bombings in 1974. Of course, they did nothing about the jailing of the Birmingham Six – six innocent men who served very long terms of imprisonment. It also makes my stomach turn, when I think that a body, which pretends to be a workers’ organisation, can foist a minimum wage of £4.30 an hour (and less for some) on to workers and trade union members. These are the fatcat officials who enjoy large salaries (and often larger expenses) and who wine and dine with even fatter-cat politicians and bosses. This is progress? It shows just how low the TUC and Labour Party have sunk in recent years and they were bad enough before this!

The TUC and
CBI regularly exchange speakers and share platforms. In fact, so collaborative is the TUC’s relationship with the bosses’ CBI, they are barely distinguishable – they could easily pass for the liberal wing of the CBI.

The TUC is also very loyal to the British state and the monarchy – many a General Secretary expects his knighthood. They always put the boot into any major workers’ struggle in the name of the British national interest.

Anyone who doubts how closely the General Council works with the British state and the employers only had to view the BBC2 documentary, True Spies. This exposed General Secretaries’ involvement in spying on their members for the state, although not out of any concern for militant trade unionism. Scargill was at least spot on, when he calmly and matter of factly said he was surprised the programme hadn’t mentioned more examples than they did! Well, what about today’s bunch, who weren’t subjected to the programme’s scrutiny?! All the more reason why we need to break completely from the TUC.

The need to effectively challenge the anti-trade union laws

The central mechanism which makes the current trade union leaders stoop so low, is the anti-trade union legislation. These laws are aimed at rank and file members, militant activity and also the union funds which finance today’s full-time officials’ privileged, often corrupt and bloated lifestyles. Under these laws, trade union leaders have prospered, greatly increasing their salaries and a whole number of perks. Whenever workers call for real action to defend our jobs, pay and conditions, trade union leaders come up with heart-rending forecasts of sequestration and bankruptcy for the union, or even worse – jailing of those responsible. What they really mean is they have become very accustomed to the privileges and lifestyles they have developed and their power over the membership. They don’t want these threatened under any circumstances!

Quite a few militants now feel that the sooner the unions are skint the sooner we might get back to what unions were originally founded for – in the face of imprisonment, transportation, injury and even death! What we can all agree on is that until these anti-union laws are effectively challenged, there can be no industrial freedom or democracy for workers and trade unionists. This means taking on the TUC and all full-time officialdom. Any serious Rank and File organisation needs to adopt defiance, defeat and repeal of the anti-trade union laws as its central political objective. How else can we successfully win major disputes, which always come up against the state and the government of the day?

A new revolutionary political way ahead – there is no British road

As a communist I’ve always believed that when we face a particularly critical situation, as we do today, we need to come up with something that is quite different from the old failed methods – something revolutionary. We are now in a situation where millions of the working class are seriously disillusioned with the Labour government and are looking for a radical alternative, not just to Blair, but to much of the rotten political system, which New Labour is trying to shore-up. Republicanism is in the air – not a fully worked out workers’ republicanism (i.e. genuine communism) but a willingness to assert the sovereignty of the people against the sovereignty of the Crown in parliament. Tony Blair is now brutally exposing even the myth of the sovereignty of parliament by invoking the Crown powers, which allow him to declare a war on Iraq in the face of mass opposition.

As a Marxist I know that it is impossible to organise successfully in the industrial sphere, without taking into account the more general political situation the working class finds itself in. We need to learn from this when we consider a Rank and File alternative to the miserable failed Broad Left political and industrial approach. We need to revive the workers’ republican tradition of Connolly and Maclean, which, when adapted for today’s conditions, is new, radical and revolutionary.

There has long been a fixation by nearly all, including revolutionary, left organisations, on the British TUC, Labour Party and Parliament. These have been considered the only organisations through which trade unionists and the working class in general can advance their interests economically, socially and politically. The British state is viewed as some sort of progressive framework which unites the working class and its organisations within its boundaries. In fact this ancien regime with its frighteningly repressive laws, its monarchist constitution and continued armed occupation of part of Ireland, remains the biggest single barrier by far to any real progress for the working class. The British state has no progressive role, only an oppressive one which has to be challenged. We must no longer allow the British state or Parliament, TUC, Labour Party (or its small-scale Nationalist emulators), or, indeed its Left, to dictate the parameters within which we organise politically and industrially. We need to mount a militant republican challenge to all these entities. This needs to be given an industrial form too.

Industrial republicanism

We don’t need to be shy of taking this new republican political challenge into the workers’ movement and giving it an industrial form. Despite the success of the Jubilee Year (until the butler spilled the beans!), over 30% of the people have consistently voted in opinion polls for the removal of the monarchy and for republicanism. This isn’t a bad starting point. We neglect republicanism at our peril!

Convincing workers to act and think like republican citizens will not be as tough as some think. In 1998 I stood for the UCATT lay Executive Council on a platform which included support for democratic republics in England, Scotland, Wales and for a United Ireland, along with a militant industrial programme. In a three-way postal ballot against two officially favoured Broad Left candidates, I gained 15% of the vote, without being able to mount a wider campaign. A republican motion on Irish unity sent to the UCATT National Delegate Conference in 2000 by the Northampton branch, got nearly 25% of the vote, even in this Broad Left manipulated arena! If we can achieve this in UCATT it can be done in other unions too. So go to it.

Republicanism means championing the sovereignty of the people against the bogus sovereignty of parliament, which fronts the ruling class’s Executive rule and its anti-democratic Crown powers. Workers republicanism means initially championing the power and sovereignty of the workers in their workplaces against the bogus sovereignty of the trade union Annual Conference, which disguises the bureaucrats’ rule from union Headquarters. The political struggle for militant republicanism is also the best context in which to fight for industrial freedom and democracy – to oppose the anti-trade union laws and all who aid and abet them!

The need for revolutionary republican political organisation

Of course, this can not be done effectively without political organisation. We need republican socialist alliances now and republican socialist parties as soon as possible in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. These need to be federated to unite the struggle against the British and the Irish state (which initiated the concept and practice of social partnership). This will take a lot of time and effort. We will need to guard against pseudo-parties and party-fronts substituting themselves for working class struggle and organisation. If republican socialists ignore the potential industrial power of the working class, British (including left) organisations will continue to dominate and divert this power into a very un- (even counter-) revolutionary direction.

We have to encourage workers to act as free citizens and not as the loyal subjects of their full-timers, the TUC, the Labour Party, Parliament or the state. When enough feel it is necessary to breakaway from the TUC we must do it. It may even be necessary to breakaway from some of the existing unions. In the meantime we are for being in the unions yes, but independent of the full-time officials.

Finally it is important to convince workers that without the fight to exercise independent control and power in their workplace and over production, allied to a wider political and social struggle, there can be no emancipation and liberation for the working class in these islands or indeed anywhere.

Tags: , ,