Carter's attempt to benefit from this fact - and secure his base in the industrial centres — got short shrift however. Workers were only too aware that, under his administration, the jobless total had soared to 8.2 million and inflation was running at 12%.
As leading trade unionist Jerry Wurf remarked: "There's such bitterness against Carter in our union, and concern that he's cut back on services to the needy and he's using unemployment as an economic policy, that our members want to lash out at the betrayal they feel" Nowhere was this sense of betrayal stronger than among Blacks and women.
ALTERNATIVE?
Reagan, as usual, didn't try to hide his credentials. He stood on an openly anti-woman, anti-Black rights ticket. He rallied behind his oppostion to abortion - and thinly-veiled support for segregation in the South - the most reactionary sectors of US society.
But Carter, while picking up a greater share of the woman and Black vote, hat no alternative. Hadn't he cut off government funds for abortion services? Hadn't he refused to lift a finger to support the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (even though professing to support it)?
Moreover, hadn't there been a growing attack on Black rights under his presidency? Although the murder of Black youth - as at Miami - is a daily occurrence, Carter's Justice Department had regularly resisted demands to intervene in such cases.
CHARADE In this sense, it is quite wrong to portray the Reagan victory as a ing Right?
'shift right' by the US working people. On the contrary, what it represented was a shift right by the US ruling class as they sought to whip up support for their war drive abroad and austerity measures at home.
What it also represented was a rejection of these prospects by growing numbers of US workers who refused to take part in the charade of choosing one capitalist candidate against another.
LACKING What was clearly lacking in the 1980 elections was a real alternative which could channel the anger and frustration of US workers against the war drive, against unemployment, cuts in social services and racist attacks. What was lacking was a labour party.
Because of the trade union bureaucracy's ties with the Democratic Party, most workers had to express their opposition to attacks upon them either by non-voting or regis. tering a protest vote against Carter. There are signs, however, that sections of the union movement are rethinking this position.
The most dramatic example of this was when the one million-strong IAM (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) refused to back Carter's nomination for president. Despite pleas, the union conference voted overwheimingly to explore the chance ot building "an independent pro-labour party dedicated to the principles of Social-Democracy".
LABOUR PARTY The decision by the IAM to take their distance from the two-party system is a sign that growing numbers of workers are looking for a party that represents the interests of working people and not big business.
and organise their own party.
POLARISATION shift by US ruling circles as they seek to make working people pay for the growing crisis.
that way. The growing frustration growing interest in a labour party that Pulley met with on his campaign - shows that US workers are moving in the opposite direction. They are beginning to organise for the big battles ahead.
Sabina Roberts (Streatham CLP)
This was precisely the ticket that the US Socialist Workers Party (SWP) ran on during the elections. Putting forward its own presidential candidate - Chicago Black steelworker Andrew Pulley - the SWP made its main thrust the need of workers to break from the two-party system Culs.
Ronald Reagan may have won the 1980 election. His platform - which was hardly different, in essence, from Carter's - may represent a rightward STRIKE? uary 1.
But working people are not moving with the two-party system - and the goverlineil.
STRUGGLE Over 700 delegates - and 300 visitors - crammed into the anti-cuts conference called, last month, by Lambeth Labour council. Of those attending, 450 were from public sector unions (NALGO, NUPE.etc) and over 200 from Constituency Labour Parties The main focus of the conference was on how to organise a fight-back against Hesaltine's latest round of As Ted Knight, leader of Lambeth Council, pointed out, Hesaltine's most recent cash limit faces Labour councils with a dilemma.
Either they stand firm and organise resistance or else - if they accept the limits - they butcher services and throw hundreds of local government employees on the dole. In Lambeth alone, for example, acceptance of the Tory cuts would lead to the loss of some 200 jobs.
Knight argued, however, that the only way Labour councils could stand up to the Tories was if the public sector unions led the way. He therefore proposed that Labour councils refuse to implement the cuts provided that the unions agreed to organise a general strike on JanKnight's attempt to pass the buck to the unions was sharply rebuffed, however, by Ron Keating (assistant Gen. Sec. NUPE). Pessimistic about any fightback, he stressed: "There is absolutely no indication that the public sector unions will lead their people into mass industrial action"
Claiming that rank-and-file workers were not ready for strike action, Keating tried to throw the buck back to Labour councillors by calling on them to "up the rates" and then blame it all on Tory central What both Knight's utopian call for a general strike - and Keating's Vanessa Wiseman A first step would be for local councils to refuse to implement any Tory cuts. As Vanessa Wiseman for the Trades Council explained: "We have to start by taking a stand now. No-one should be selling council houses or planning cuts. We have to build a movement that can save our services"
SUPPORT Such a perspective won the support of many of the delegates present, particularly from the union sector, who openly opposed the defeatism of Keating's amendment.
They showed, in no uncertain terms, the willingness of many pub. lic sector workers to take action in detence of jobs and services. Largely as a result of this mood, it was agreed by a large majority that Labour councillors should refuse both to introduce cuts or increase rates (at least in this financial year).
This position was strengthened by an amendment from Lambeth NUT that a steering committee should be elected ready to organise support for "councils or councillors penalised by the Tories"
FUTURE Whether or not Labour councils will be prepared to abide by these decisions remains, of course, to be The important thing is that the conference drew together a wide spectrum of union and Labour Party activists who do want to fight the cuts and who are not prepared to see social services axed while tax cuts are made to the rich It is up to them to ensure that these decisions are carried out and that — if not — a real struggle is be. gun in the labour movement to force Labour councils to implement policies in the interests of the workers they were voted in to represent.