The origin of the errors¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter, drawn from a Marxist theoretical text, confronts a critical tactical error within the trade union movement during a period of industrial restructuring and rising unemployment. The core argument is that the slogan “dilutees first”—favoured by trade union bureaucrats as a means of channelling worker discontent without challenging capitalism—is fundamentally wrong. However, the chapter’s primary polemic is directed not at the bureaucrats but at militants within the revolutionary party who have adopted a superficially opposing slogan: “non-unionists first” or “nons first”. The author insists that this latter position is not a genuine alternative but a mirror image of the same error, rooted in craft unionist consciousness and syndicalist deviation.
The key claim is that neither slogan can solve the problem of redundancy and unemployment because these are not isolated industrial issues but manifestations of the general crisis of capitalism, which capitalism itself cannot resolve. The evidence cited is specific: the Dilution Agreement, which theoretically regulated the influx of new workers, had by the end of 1943 registered under five percent of the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) membership. The real threat to skilled workers’ rates and conditions, the chapter argues, is not the entry of fresh labour but the systematic de-skilling of the engineering industry, exemplified by Rolls Royce. Both slogans, therefore, misdiagnose the enemy.
The chapter draws heavily on the theoretical framework of the Transitional Programme, which is invoked as the only real road out. It quotes the programme’s observation that trade unions, even the most powerful, embrace no more than 20 to 25 percent of the working class, predominantly the skilled and better-paid layers. This provides the theoretical basis for rejecting any policy that discriminates against the unorganised. The “nons first” slogan, by dividing the workers and creating a pool of potential scab labour, not only fails to protect the skilled but actively threatens them by fragmenting the class. It also allows reformist bureaucrats to keep the struggle on a low industrial plane, preventing it from escalating into a fight against the capitalist system itself.
The chapter’s most notable polemic is internal: it is a sharp rebuke to comrades who, under pressure from the factory floor, seek “short cut” policies. The author identifies this as a symptom of syndicalism, craftism, and a lack of political education. The solution demanded is not a better slogan but a collective theoretical rearmament. Party members operating in industry must break from the narrow horizon of militant trade unionism and act consciously as revolutionary Marxists, leading both the organised and the unorganised. The chapter thus functions as a stern lesson in the subordination of industrial tactics to revolutionary strategy.