Link up with the workers!

Scan page 11

analysis.. SO No.55 carried an article dy oruce hobinson online Dlanned visit to South Africa by Bill Sirs and Terry Dutiy (since called off). The article effectively and strongly pointed to the real role played by these bureaucrats in relation to solidarity with S.African workers - for example their refusal to lift a finger to call action in support of strikers at Leyland and other plants in S.Africa.

However, Robinson was wrong to oppose the visit the grounds that it would break the policy of "total isolation' of S.Africa' S.Africa is a nation divided into classes. Our task is not to isolate S.Africa' , but to build links with our class allies in S.Africa, and to fight for solidarity action from the labour movement that can give real aid to the black workers - particularly blacking and strike action in support of struggles.

Hi-Fi Today black mamhara nf the the group. Despite rumours that the three Specials who are left in the group now will continue under the same name they will never be the same. The other three are already launched as the Funboy Three, with single out on Chrysalis called The Lunatics (have taken over the asylum).

But I'm sure 1'll remember the Specials as they were, even years after my teen-age is over, simply by playing A Message To You Rudy. Yeah, and I know it was done by Prince Buster originally!

Direct contacts with the workers' movement in S.A. - through factory-to-factory links and also through visits by trade union delegations where possible -are clearly an important part of the fight for effective solidarity action.

The problem with Robinson's position is that he ends up opposing any and all trade union visits - and by implication, any contacts between workers' movements here and in SA.

Rather, we had to oppose the visit in the context of a fight for genuine fighting links between rank and file trade unionists, for links that serve the needs and requests of S.African workers and that are under the control of workers in Britain.

Requests from SA workers and their unions must be made known to the rank and file; the question of how to respond to these requests must be openly discussed; decisions must be carried through at each stage with the active participation of workers.

On all these counts, the Sirs/Duffy visit had to be fought. But to oppose the visit on the basis of the policy of 'isolation' fails to take forward the struggle for fighting links of working class solidarity - in fact, it takes the issue out of the hands of ISTC and AUEW workers.

This is precisely many bureaucrats are quite happy to endorse the 'total isolation of S.Africa' platform.

The leadership of the SA Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) hit at Sirs for his racism and contempt the real S.African workers' movement. But it is important to see part of what lies behind their attack.

They are not attacking Bill Sirs' reformist politics or bureaucratic methods. Many of them are reformists themselves. For some of them, the attack on Bill Sirs is based on their opposition to any direct contact between workers in South Africa and abroad.

Behind their attack on Bill Sirs lies the opposition of SACTU, and with them Stalinist-influenced Tant ANC and AAM leaderships, to any links which are not channelled through these organisations.

They are quite willing to obstruct direct links with S.Africa when they cannot be sure that those links are under their control. They are willing to take action to promote their control at the expense : of the needs of workers in struggle.

Socialist Organiser has recently put forward the basis for a genuine position of solidarity in the labour movement, based on supportive strikes and blacking action.

A motion along these lines will be put to the AAM conference next month. The leaders of SACTU and all those others who have attacked Bill Sirs will be given the chance to show whether they support such a programme.

L.HUNT London