In a capitalist society, the function of a trade union is to struggle \ within the limits of the capitalist labour market for better wages and better conditions for the section of the workers it ropresents. Any stepping outsido of these limits is a revolutionary step. The great cry "no politics in the unions" is the cry of the craft unionist, trying obediently to hold the struggle within the confines dictated by the capitalist state and to prevent it from generalising into class demands. The consistent failure of the T.U.C. to act as a General Staff of Labour is the measure of their loyalty to capitalist unionism.
The traditional policy of capital - divide and rule - coincides with the trade union policy of 'no politics - no union on the class arena. The trade union leaders try hard to keep the workers within the capitalist dictated formulae Hence over the years all those isolated strikes, of one section of workers doing battle against their own employers, the employers in federation, the employers in their Government, the employers in their Press and B.B.C. and I.T.V., the employers in their police and state forces. We see today, everything and everybody directed against the railwaymen, against the N.U.R. Of course, it is official action, and therefore trade union leaders have offered the railwaymen plenty of platitudes, plenty of moral support. But they do not strike alongside the railwaymen. That would not be playing the 'game' that Beeching talks about.
But sometimes life makes fools of us all. Sometimes, painful reality ; walks through the trade union rule books. The revolutionary step is taken, Sometimes even Sidne y Creen is brought face to face with Karl Marx. On the face of it the N.U.R. is fighting to preserve the conditions of the railwaymen. It is fighting to prevent "redundancy" - that blessed word for unemplcyment - from throwing thousands and thousands of railwaymen into the streets, The cynic might say that it is fighting a little late, as all the decisions have cliready been taken by Doctor Becching and the Government, and tiat trade unions doing their job properly would anticipate the decision of capital, instead of kicking against them after they have been taken. Nevertheless, the N.U.R. is fighting now. But not merely against redundancy. The N.U.R.. and Sidney Green demand "consultation" before the British Transport Commissions take decisions. They are quite right.
But Sidney Green mist recognise - as Dr. Beeching recongises very well that this is not merely a "trade union demand". This is a revolutionary demand. It brings Sidney Green face to face with Karl Marx. ‘the starting point of capitalism is the separation of the labourer from his means of production, declared karl Marx. The capitalist mode of production is precisely the conditions under which these two elements are united in the hands of the capitalist. It is?®ithe constant interest of the capitalists to keep the lahourer ignorant of these conditions, to deceive and bamboozle him about them, to control these conditions themselves and to prevent the workers from having any say in these conditicns. A long struggle, for over a century, has enabled the workers to do something about wages, But now they demand "consultation" before the Transport Commission can close down railway workShops, in favour of private enterprise. They are interfering with the conditions of production, which are entirely the concern of capital and Dr. Beeching, Why, they will want to interfere with profits next}
The organisation of the conditions of capitalist production is a functiste capital. To demand participation in this step is a sten towards communism, It is somothing that Dr. Beeching will fight to the last. From his point of view, he is right. For the thin edge of the wedge can not only drive a crack in capitalism, it can also chip the skulls of working men and let in a little socialist light. "Consultation" can lead to other things. For one thing, it can lead back to the. nationalisation which Dr. Beeching is doing his best to break up. And it could lead to a nationalisation with "counsultation" that could be far more thorough—going than any nationalisation introduced by the timidities of the Labour Party. It might even raise that terrible word, "socialisation" -— that is, nationalisation organised by the railwaymen themselves, and not by Dr. Beeching and his colleagues.
In fact, the whole situation bristles with the possibility of reawakening Karl Marx from his sleep on Highgate Hill. If communism can lie under the innocent word, "consultation", on Sidney Green's smooth-shaven checks may sprout the beard of Karl Marx.