It is now over two years since 500 Liverpool Dockers were dismissed by MDHC for daring to defend minimum conditions of work and the collective principle of not crossing a picket line. In the ensuing period the sacked dockers, their families and support groups, have mounted a national and international campaign for the reinstatement of the dockers and a fight against the global tide of work casualisation imposed by the ruling classes. The campaign has been unique in the way it has combined 'old' and 'new' collectivities, such as rank and file trade unionism, women and unemployed support groups, environmentalists, socialists and Anarchists. One outcome is that more embracive forms of class struggle, which hold out the possibility of transcending the traditional boundaries between 'public/private', 'industrial'/'political' and national/international, have become discernible.

The media, on the rare occasion when they have breached their own news blockade, have usually inverted reality by presenting the struggle as the last battle charge of that social 'dinosaur' industrial militancy. While industrial militancy is inherent to the condition of wage labour and can never become 'old fashioned', etc, the reality of the situation is that the use of global systems of communication by dockers and the labour movement, the international links forged with other port workers and the integration of family, community and workplace as the focal point of class struggle, marks this dispute as futuristic. Of course while there is nothing specifically new with regard each of these developments, it can nontheless be said that they have each taken a qualitative turn. For example, family, community and workplace have drawn together on a number of previous occasions, especially during the Glasgow rent strikes of 1915 and more recently the 1984-5 miners strike. The point, however, is that 'modern' forms of capitalist exploitation are fast turning this rarely actualised focal point of class struggle into a norm. Capitalism today can no longer resist the temptation to cut wages below the value of labour power, intensify work and extend the working day. For many years people spoke about the dehumanising effects of 'informal' working life in purposely underdeveloped parts of the world. Now workers in the so called 'developed' West are less and less cushioned by 'formal' working arrangements as capital goes 'global'. The outcome is that capitalism must reach deeper into the supposed sanctity of family life, wrenching it apart, undermining in the process the very family values which serve to underpin the capitalist system's ideological hegemony. The families of the dockers experience this as a deep resentment against MDHC management's encroachment into 'family time' and the unforgivable badgering and bullying of the wider family by MDHC to ensure the men responded 'flexibly' to the constantly revamped shift rota's. It is largely as a response to these kind of intrusions, which are becoming a norm across industries and whole economy's, that docker's families have drawn together as a class unit to provide the basis of a powerful source of solidarity, which MDHC, the State and their own official trade union, the T&GWU, have failed to break. The recent rejection by 2:1 of the secret ballot formulated by MDHC and the T&GWU and imposed by Bill Morris after 25 months of struggle, amply demonstrates the depth of this solidarity.

The general tendency within modern capitalism is to integrate family, community and workplace as a focal point of class struggle and open up the possibility of reversing some of the socially constructed zones of 'private' and 'public' class containment. The degree to which this tendency becomes actual however will differ in particular cases and is wholly a matter of empirical research. The discussion with members of 'WOW' below indicates that, in the case of the Liverpool dock struggle, class, differentiated by gender, is becoming a focal point integrating work, family and community.

PK: Can I start by asking how many women are currently active in 'WOW'?

Doreen: 60 to 80, that's a hard core, although most of the dockers wives are involved in some capacity, but for various reasons not everyone can give the same commitment.

Sue: We see most of the women on all of the marches and rallies and occasionally on the picket line. A lot of women want to be more involved but they can't, because of other commitments, as Doreen says. For example, some have taken on full time jobs, women have had to become the main bread-winners.

PK: There must be immense financial pressures on families.

Marie: Tremendous pressure, absolutely tremendous.

Teresa: Before the sackings we had the one income coming in, now we have non we've got one child that's a student, another on youth training and we also have a young child to support.

Sue: The reaction of the system makes the financial problem even worse. For example, my son had an accident not long ago and because he was not entitled to disability allowance we took out a loan to buy a car. Now, I've been married 21 yrs and never missed payments that were due, but I was taken to court recently because I couldn't make a loan payment. We tried to make smaller repayments, but that wasn't good enough. Yer know, we're on income support, but income support doesn't give you money to pay these creditors, they only just give you enough to 'live on'. You get creditors who get stroppy with you; you talk to them on the phone and they're okay at first, but ultimately they don't give a damn, they just want their money. So things such as this put more pressure on you, you think you're going to be put on all the bad debtor lists. Although individual circumstances differ, this kind of thing is representative of us all, isn't it girls?

All: Definitely!

PK: One of the defining characteristics of this struggle has been the involvement of the family, including the children, which has proved very effective in developing a sense of shared commitment to the cause. How did this evolve?

Doreen: it originates from the fact the company intruded in our family lives from 1989 onwards. Our families were under pressure and children rarely saw their fathers, there was no family life or social life. So even though many of the women had not met, everyone had this debt to settle with MDHC.

Mary: Yes the children had been answering the phone since 1989 and having to tell 'fib's' since 1989, you know having to say their Dad was asleep in the chair or was not in, just to shield him from management intrusion.

Teresa: It got to a point where my husband worked 7 days a week for years, there was just no leisure time and this effected the kids.

Doreen: Prior to 1989 my husband used to work Saturday morning if he chose to do, but in general could take the weekend off if he so chose. Therefore, prior to 1989 a relationship could be built up with your children. For example, we have boys and Charlie used to run the kids football team and played football himself. But when the Government ended the National Dock Labour Scheme in 1989, it brought any family leisure time to an end too. Charlie was no longer there to go to the football, or for a pint with his sons. The boys often went 3 or 4 weeks without seeing him: they'd Have to ring him up during the week to ask, 'are yer dead yet - send us a few bob so we know you're still alive' (laughing)!

Sue: Our kids were convinced we were getting divorced, because I'd be all het-up saying to my fella 'look at the state you're in'. Physically and mentally he was worn out by the new work regime. The kids used to think we were arguing, but I wasn't arguing, at him, rather I was arguing because I could see what the company were doing to him. He was thinking of the extra money for things for the kids you see.

Mary: But it wasn't only the money Sue, they were made to do it. The men were under constant threat and harassment, if they didn't do it they went on report. They were frightened of losing their jobs. For example, I'd say to Dave, don't do this, do such and such, but he'd say 'I can't I've got to go in', and that's all you'd here from him. Sitting here now it must seem hard to understand why he could not simply say no. Before 1989 we had been used to saying no. However, you have to understand that management at MDHC were now very quick to put the men on report and give the men verbal and written warnings for the least thing. The last two years were worst of all with respect to this.

Sue: The worst part was that we always did things together as a family and that just went out the window. My husband used to take the kids swimming regularly, he couldn't do that anymore, the kids were angry and couldn't understand why. At the beginning when their dad was sacked I think they were all made up! They must have thought their mum and dad felt okay about it, probably because I think we did at first think there would be some quick conclusion to the dispute: in this respect we were just glad to have some time together as a family! But as time went by the kids soon realised what the dispute was really about and I can only admire them because they have just become so politicised, so confident about not just sitting back and accepting things. For example, they have explained the situation to their mates and school teachers, especially after the Ken Loach film. The kids have felt good explaining events and getting the support of all their mates and teachers, who say they admire what you are doing as a family.

Marie: There is no doubt that the kids have really gained in confidence to the extent that they can stand up at the rally and voice their support and air their views. However, the family support extends further, for example, even the grandparents are involved!

Doreen: Yes my parents have supported my children through university, because they didn't want them to get in to debt - there's no jobs at the end of university anyway so why go into debt! My dads 83 and my mums 78 and they shouldn't have to do that, but they do. They're happy to do it, but it kills you, its difficult to deal with.

PK: Can I stay with the theme of family involvement for a little longer but broaden the discussion out a little more. Some people today argue that employment in the past tended to provide a family wage, with the consequence that class struggle took place outside of the home and was dominated by males, whereas today employment no longer guarantees a family wage with the consequence that men and women are increasingly drawn together to contest the low pay and poor conditions they now experience at work. How do you see the situation?

Doreen: We only had the one income so did Sue, so did Mary. I understand what you're saying about incomes, how it's become more prevalent that women provide part of the total family income and that this has had a role in politicising the family. To some extent the family involvement confirms this. But I disagree with you there on one point because I think working class women, especially in Liverpool, have always been involved in disputes. if you look back in history, at, for example, the dock strikes of 1889, the women were there collecting the bricks to throw at the soldiers! This has been the norm in Liverpool.

Mary: Working class women have always had to manage, always had to work, always had to struggle.

Sue: I think working class women have been more politicised in Liverpool. mainly because they have always had to work hard and fight for any gains. It was a while before my husband could earn enough to enable me to even think about giving up work. My husband had to do 7 years training as a rigger and that was hard. We were married about 5 years before he had a decent wage. At that time I wanted to bring up my children, I think in my age they did think that way; you wanted to be home, you didn't want your children coming home and not having a parent in. Maybe this seems old fashioned now, but there was very little maternity leave then. I know its all reversed and probably I'll go back to work, maybe Colin might not be able to get a full time job, but that's because of new circumstances. But what are the government doing, their blaming single parents, blaming people for leaving their kids, but their not doing anything to make the situation better, because its all part time cheap labour these days. So it does need two people now to go out and get a living wage, which leads to the situation where the kids are left alone.

Doreen: And that's why you've got so much juvenile crime I believe. People talk about it being old fashioned for a women to want to stay at home to mind the kids, but its not, The real issue is choice. If you choose to have children, then you must accept the responsibility of bringing them up with decent values. Don't get me wrong I think its fine if the man wants to be the one to stay at home. The crucial issue is choice, as against compulsion!

Mary: I've got two grandchildren who spend time in crèches. I don't agree with it, but I realise their mother and father have got to do it to be able to live, to be able to pay their mortgage and to try to live a decent lifestyle.

Doreen: Which of course makes a mockery of choice, these days we're forced into a situation where both parents have to work!

PK: There has been a big interest in the development of 'WOW'. The struggle you are engaged in is now 25 months old, and while the first 12 months of 'WOWs' activities are relatively well known, there's been less written about how you have develped since. My question is, have 'WOW' maintained the political momentum they established in the first twelve months of the struggle?

All: 'WOW' has developed even more!

Doreen: We've been engaged in so much activity we're all exhausted! Initially we started with local meetings and national meetings. For example, with tactics like picketing the houses of MDHC management. Now we're involved in international tours and conferences, spreading the word to all who will listen. For example, members of 'WOW' have been to America, Canada, France, Sweden, Germany. The whole thing is gaining momentum all the time; our movement has got stronger, we've networked right round the world.

PK: Who is it that you meet when you go abroad?

Doreen: They can be trade unionists, support groups of women like ourselves or they could be political groups and/or human rights groups, there isn't a common denominator, just a concern for human dignity. As far as 'WOW' are concerned what we are involved in is a human rights struggle, because any erosion of your social gains, including our hard won workplace rights, is a violation of your human rights. That's where we're coming from isn't it girls.

PK: What has the response been like to your cause?

Sue: Absolutely astonishing, tremendous! I don't thing we've ever come away from and event, rally or meeting feeling like it was pointless, the experience has always been so uplifting. When you go away you tend to worry about the children, or about whether you're just repeating yourself, or that they won't understand you, but the people we've met have been so responsive and understanding. The solidarity you experience makes you feel great and makes you know that it is all worthwhile.

Doreen: On one occasion in Paris we were to speak at a meeting attended by trade unionist from all over France. When Sue and I walked in everyone was standing up cheering and clapping, there were 1800 people in all! I said to Sue 'oh there must be somebody here of importance'. So we turned to our friend John-Pierre and asked 'who's here?, and he replied 'you and Sue of course'. We came home that day with £30,000 in donations and a committment to practical support!

Sue: When I attend these events I just look in amazement at all these people who support us, how we can repay and adequately thank them I'll never know. I keep thinking to myself what am I doing here I'm only a housewife? You don't think you've got anything interesting to say, yet time and again people have been impressed with the case we have made. At the end of the day you've lived it so you know what to say from the heart.

Doreen: Exactly, you're not learning some script, you're only speaking the truth about the callous way the dockers have been treated.

PK: This sudden explosion of solidarity has been in complete contrast to recent years in Britain, where people are continually told that individual self interest rules and that looking after number one is what counts. How do you see the situation in the light of your experiences?

Sue: I think people have been looking for something like this for a long time. As the women have gone round it has become clear that people have got involved because they think 'well yeah, its something worth fighting for'. For people who believe in something like socialism this dispute and its repercussions are like the phoenix rising once again out of the ashes.

Doreen: I think another reason why this dispute has grown so strong is that whether national or international everyone can identify with the struggle. When Sue and I went to that Paris conference previously mentioned there was something like 72 countries represented and every single one of them said the same thing; 'privatisation, deregulation, casualisation is the central focus of struggle'. Right around the world from Bangkok to Brighton the same process of labour casualisation, privatisation and deregulation is occurring. Interestingly everyone referred to 1989 as the year when all these separate factors came together. The outcome of the Conference was that the delegates of the 72 countries would get behind Liverpool because they saw Liverpool as the spearhead of the fight back. And the support is still coming from those countries in many forms, from petitioning of the British government to withdrawal of labour around the world's shipyards.

Sue: Just to think that other people from the other side of the world are taking strike action in support of Liverpool is amazing, after all these are people with families too and with their own hardships to contend with. That's another reason why there is now no going back, they've made a commitment to us and we'll support them in the future!

Doreen: The sense of solidarity Sue is referring to comes across strongly, when people say, 'your struggle is our struggle, if you win we've all won'.

PK: You mention that the year 1989 was significant, what do you think was so significant about this year?

Teresa: Well the world has become more globalised since then.

Sue: The power of multinationals has increased and it seems to me that the business world has got together on a global basis to run the world economy as they see fit.

Doreen: In this context recent transformations within the International Labour Organisation - you know, the ILO - are of interest. The ILO as you know is supposed to serve the interests of international labour by monitoring global working conditions and setting out guidelines for working hours, etc. However a meeting of the ILO in Geneva a couple of months back disclosed that the ILO had been increasingly infiltrated by big business and that there were now as a result more bankers and multinational representatives than there were representatives of working people. These people want to change the ILO norms. Now, if the norms of the ILO are changed to fit in with the needs of multinationals, then certainly governments have too, so governments will have even less sovereignty over the economy, which will mean that multinationals can move more easily from one economy to another, almost at a moments notice, with little or no recompense to the workers. In my opinion it would result ultimately in a kind of barbarism.

Sue: Yes working class people have been and will continue to be caught in a debt trap largely created by the same people responsible for unemployment in the first place. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a strategy. Everybody has fell into a trap, 'they' have made it so easy for people to borrow and go in to debt. 'They' create an economic dependency to the point where they think 'we've got em all now, so lets put more pressure on working people'. And because workers are scared, because they have all got debts and loans, workers have been defeated.

Doreen: Yes this has certainly been a strategy, people from the business world and the state have sat in rooms around a tables and they have worked this out over a series of years. There were always people there telling us 'this is what their trying to do, this is what they're trying to do', but people ignored the warning and enslaved themselves to mortgages and consumer goods. But ultimately, you know, these material things aren't the most important, that's why we can fight. I worry about the next generation though, they think a car is vital and a mobile phone a necessity so they can be in contact with people every second of every minute of every working day!

PK: I'd like to move the discussion on for a moment because we'll be coming back to some of these issues later. What is 'Wow's' relationship with the Port Shop Stewards Committee, for example, do both parties sit on a common committee and have a joint say in the shaping of day to day tactics and overall strategy?

Doreen: We have a liaison officer right now. Initially we used to have a meeting each week with the Port Shop Stewards, but then difficulties arose, because either we or they could not make the meeting for a variety of reasons; there used to be murder over this so the strategy changed. We now have a liaison officer, as mentioned, his name is Kevin Robinson. This arrangement works quite well. The liaison officer attends the women's committee meeting held on a Wednesday, where he feeds information to us and we provide information for him to take back to the Shop Stewards; it works quite well this way. Sometimes we'll know things before the men's weekly mass meeting on Friday's. For example, last week a women's support group in Holland phoned us up at our Wednesday night meeting to inform us that dockers in Amsterdam had been sacked and we were able to pass this information on through Kevin to the Stewards who were still unaware of this.

PK: Is the liaison a two-way process?

Doreen: Yes, anything we want them to know we tell Kevin and he takes it back.

Teresa: But we have to be careful as to how far we can go don't we.

Sue: We do check most things out with the shop stewards, don't forget they have more experience at these things than us; we were housewives before all this!

Doreen: On the whole the relationship works quite well, it's mainly over sensitive issues such as the Gaddafi Award, that we defer to the men's greater experience. We have our rows of course, we'd be liars to say we hadn't, but by and large the relationship between the men and the women has been positive.

Sue: I think it has to be said that some of the men were initially anti-women full stop! However, they have come round to us. Certain ones have said, by way of singing our praises, 'I can't believe what you do'. I think we have won most round to this way of thinking. We don't want to run the dispute, we're a support group for the men, we're no better than anyone else and that goes for the women who can't be on the committee too. We're just here to do all we can to fight to get those jobs back.

Doreen: There was one particular steward who was very honest from the off, he didn't think the women should be involved. For him it wasn't a women's fight, it was nothing to do with women and they shouldn't be on the picket line. But a month ago he approached me and said I know I used to say this about the women, but I just can't believe the difference 'WOW' have made to the struggle and the value of the women to the struggle. He said he'd come to this conclusion long ago. He said he was now fully committed to the women.

Mary: You know, for a male chauvinist pig to say something nice about women, is a real measure of the progress 'WOW' have made (laughing)!

Sue: I think the initial reaction was due to the men's nervousness; my husband didn't want me on the picket line at first because he said there'd be no other women there. When I later found out that some women had turned up I said to him don't you ever tell me lies again or that's the end of us! Yer know I just wanted to be part of it, I think he thought 'well all the lads will skit me if my wife accompanies me to the picket line'. Now of course women are totally accepted.

Doreen: Billy Johnson one of the shop stewards was asked by delegates in France what they thought of the women' involvement. Billy replied that the majority of the men were all for it. More significantly Billy said that he'd noticed that the men who's wives aren't involved, were the ones who were always moaning, had less of a feeling of collective solidarity and who got a lot of 'aggro' at home.

Sue: That's right, where the men and women have struggled together, the pressure is that much less. Often it is the banter between the men and women that builds and maintains both humour and a sense of solidarity.

Doreen: As an example of this; on the picket line one day all these lorries were coming out and the lorry drivers were hurling the abuse - 'out the way you wankers'. So I'm standing there thinking that's awful look at these men they can't do a thing about it. At the weekly mass meeting on Friday everyone was still quite low, so I stood up without fully realising what I was saying and said ' its terrible isn't it when we're standing on the picket line and wagon drivers are coming out and calling you wankers'. I then looked at them all and said 'well at least you've all got something to wank'! For a split second there was total stunned silence, then the whole room just erupted with laughter.

Mary: my husband went home that day still laughing!

Sue: but this is what it's about isn't it. You might get people at a low ebb from time to time, but you can talk, you can ring one another up (men and women) and perk each other up. Yer know, the humour keeps you going, but your heart breaks sometimes when you look at the faces of the men when people cross the picket line. How my husband has kept his anger I'll never know. What keeps him going is when he sees that the port is not working and the picketing is having its effect. He knows then that MDHC need these men back.

Mary: On the local bus route we take most days we can see the dockyards gantries, so every time you take a bus ride you can see how the dockyard is coping and your moods can swing as a result. For example, one day it'll be 'oh there's no ships in today the gantries are up', or another day it will be, 'bloody hell there's a ship in today the gantries are down'. This has an effect on the men you can hear the difference in them.

Doreen: From our house you can see the docks, often when Charlie puts the washing out he'll come back in with his usual report of what's going on around the dockyard. A point which emphasises that the struggle is there all the time!

Sue: Overall the picket has been a great success, the men count the lorries, and they know their efforts are paying off!

Mary: You know there always used to be queues of lorries. Before the dispute began the men would come home from work and say 'there's bloody queues there from 7 o'clock in the morning'. Now we're there at 6 o'clock in the morning and there is never a queue, never ever a queue; only when we make one there's a queue!

PK: Can I ask you a little more about the wider relationships 'WOW' have made during the dispute. Specifically, you've established relationships with many support groups at home and abroad, has there been any commitment to maintaining these relations when/if the current struggle comes to an end?

Doreen: I'll be surprised if we don't. We have made a register of all our contacts and we intend to make use of them in the future to help others in their struggle.

Sue: If we can give a hand to others we certainly will. Yer know, that's how we got on, by other people helping us. For example, the miners wives at the beginning of our struggle came and spoke to us about their experiences. I feel that you owe it to other people to keep what we have going. Not only that, but once you are in a struggle such as this you will probably always be involved in other struggles.

Doreen: They say that human suffering makes better people, well I think we're all better people for having gone through this struggle.

PK: The experience of 25 months of struggle has clearly effected you all in different ways. Of interest is how the struggle has effected your political perceptions and social awareness. For example, have your views about the Labour Party, Trade Unions and social movements such as Feminism, Environmentalism, Reclaim The Street activists, altered?

Sue: It has opened my eyes to the trade union's and the Labour Party. Put it this way I've now got little time for trade union's, while I've got total respect, total respect for Envirnomental and Reclaim The Street activists, etc. I get told by women - brilliant women - in the T&G that you can only fight from within the union. But I say to them it is only when you get rid of the bureaucrats, that the union can be what it should be, and then I'll join the union, but not when you've got top people ignoring you. The union's and Labour talk about the industrial relations laws, but these laws need to be challenged. The Environmentalists are often labelled as scroungers, but they're not, they live off the land. I admire them because they're totally committed to causes. When I saw them fighting alongside wealthy people out to protect their homes at the new Manchester Airport construction site, I wondered whether the wealthy people would change their views about them during the course of the protest. I know my own experience has changed my views and I'll always support them.

Mary: Contrary to other opinions they're lovely people, very caring.

Doreen: As Sue and Mary say these social groups are not yobs but are often portrayed as yobs. You only need to sit and have a conversation with them to know that they are very well educated and gentle people. They're humanitarians, that's exactly what they are. They are totally against violence. Any violence where they have been involved, from what I have seen, has always been provoked by the police, or, by guards; as in when they sent guards in over the runway at Manchester. Those guards had masks and hoods on, if what they were doing was right, then why do they feel the need to wear hoods? It is outrageous! Why weren't the security company taken to task over that, by politicians? We've gained respect for people like the 'Reclaimer's', while we've lost all respect for the establishment.

Teresa: My girl's had twins and she's called them after two of the lads from Reclaim The Streets - their not the father like!

Mary: The police have been brutal when dealing with these social movements.

Sue: We saw them at one of the first of the mass pickets and observed first hand how the police picked them up and through them in their van. WOW and dockers witnessed this and so that night we marched along the road with them and we gave them protection. We took our children along and we walked with the activists, because we felt while we were there as witnesses they would be less likely to be attacked by the police.

Mary: But even so the police still dragged some of them out of line and beat them up in their vans; we could see the vans going up and down as the police were kicking them and beating them!

PK: How do you account for the emergence of social movements like these over recent decades?

Doreen: I suppose one reason is that more young people are staying within the education system at a time when society has less and less to offer them when they leave it! These people are better educated, they acquire broader visions and horizons, they take on board more things, they are not as insular. As a result they are more able to understand what has happened to the environment, and understand what's happening politically and socially too. So when they leave the universities, there's no work, no jobs and they have chosen to fight this their way. Some people choose to fight through the system, through the trade unions, or wherever, but they choose to fight their way. They can't see a future for themselves the way things are at present. In fact that's why some call themselves 'Reclaim The Future' and 'Reclaim The Streets'.

Mary: they see the injustice of a lot of things, for example, the way the police get away with a lot of things. You see, the traditional left groups have failed to challenge 17 years of Thacherism and the laws it established and it's been left to these social movements to attempt to change things.

Doreen: what we have learned, and what they have known, is that the law only applies to working people and I think their reasoning is that 'the bosses, the Government and others, can break the law and are never taken to task over it'. You know they're right, but the rest of us haven't got the courage to do as much as what they are doing about it.

PK: You intimated that one reason for the development of the social movements of which you have spoken was due to the failure of left wing parliamentary politics to challenge the Thatcherite years. Could you expand on this line of thought?

Doreen: Well I always used to vote Labour, because Labour was perceived to be the 'Party of the people', who looked after working class people. However, during the course of this dispute I've changed my views about this. For me Labour is no longer the Labour Party I was brought up to believe in. Don't get me wrong there are still Labour MP's who have the same values, but they are considered old fashioned now. Labour seems to have lost its values, come off its track and generally forgotten where it came from. In doing so Labour also seem to be aided and abetted by the leadership of the trade unions. Now I want to make it clear that an important part of our struggle is about the defence of trade unionism, I am a trade unionist, I always will be a trade unionist. It is just that at the top things have gone drastically wrong. The dockers movement, as I'm sure you are aware, is a rank and file movement, which has had to do without the help of the bureaucracy during the dispute. This illustrates to me that the rank and file are the union, that the union can be run without the bureaucracy, and that the possibility remains that the union can be changed from within. However, with the Labour Party things are different. The Labour Party has been transformed, it's quite frightening at times, because the younger people who now dominate it are careerists. I didn't vote Labour in the last election, but many people did, not because they believe in them, but simply to get the Tories out!

PK: what do you put the changes occurring within the Labour Party down to, for example, is it just the power of Blair's personality, or is it primarily to do with more profound structural economic and social changes which have been occurring?

Doreen: I believe the changes within Labour are tied to these profound structural changes which are global in scope. This is one reason why I voted for the Socialist Labour Party in the general election. It will take working people around the world to stand together to have any impact on these structural changes. It is about the power of global capitalism. Capital has always been global, for example Britain and France have always had their colonies to exploit, etc, but now globalisation has increased dramatically. If we take shipping and the dockyards, for example, we see that 5 shipping companies rule the world. The power of multinationals is now more concentrated, they take over the sovereignty of countries, who come within the grip of The World Bank, the IMF and similar institutions.

Mary: To give an example, of the beleif amongst Labour supporters of the political bankruptsy of New Labour. I was in Oxford on polling day. We did our voting here then we got the train down to Oxford. We stayed up to see the election result and the person we were staying with was actually crying at the thought of Tony Blair getting in! As far as she was concerned Blair was going to do exactly the same as Margaret Thatcher. And within days hadn't Blair asked Margaret Thatcher in to 10 Downing St to ask her opinion!

Sue: A lot of people I know felt the same way, that it would be the same old policies.

Doreen: I felt really insulted by Labour and Tony Blair. I was insulted by their so called spin doctors portraying this image of you know the 'toothpaste smile'. We laugh at the Americans for being taken in by this! While we're not taken in by it, Labour still come along and attempt to take us in! All I've got to say is don't insult my intelligence! I told Labour when they came canvassing, 'you tell me what your political views are and I will then make an informed political decision, but don't just walk around with smiles, loud music and balloons telling people everything's going to get better! New Labour are an insult to working people!

Mary: But yer know some people do believe them that's why Labour won the election. Now that they are in power the conferences are never going to be the same. Your not going to be able to stand up and debate anymore.

Sue: Yes this became clear to us when we went to the last Labour Conference; we couldn't get near the place for security! But there has been little challenge to all this, people are scared of stepping out of line. I've stopped voting Labour, my husband said there was no alternative, but I said there was - Socialist Labour. A lot of the dockers families voted Socialist Labour, because the policies seemed more in tune with their aspirations.

PK: given this outlok, would you say a new working class Party has to develop?

Doreen: Well people like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn argue that we must stay with Labour and fight from within to change it. But Scargill's Socialist Party have argued that you've got to establish a new Party because the removal of clause four has meant that Labour is no longer a Party of the working class, and you've got to agree with that. When Scargill started his new Party, I said to him at the time 'don't you think your timing is out, because with the general election coming up this will only split the labour vote'? He said 'well so what, when the Conservative's are in then at least you know who the enemy is'! With hindsight I've come to the conclusion that he is probably right. Perhaps Socialist Labour will gain more support? Militant Labour did themselves no favours by changing their name a few weeks before the election. People were saying 'who's this Socialist Party then'? I think they should have come out as Militant Labour because people in this city aren't afraid of Militant Labour. Although I voted Socialist Labour, I myself don't belong to any political party and doubt whether I will.

PK: People in general tend not to challenge, or even reflect on the shortcomings of parliamentary democracy. What has your experience taught you?

Mary: That democracy these days only extends as far as what you can pay for, 'democracy' is how big your purse is!

Doreen: That we don't live in a democratic country!

Sue: Ultimately you know working class people need to establish another Party, because what we have now is useless; Labour are just another version of the Tory Party.

PK: Following the last point up from another angle, If I can take you back to the rally marking the second anniversary of the struggle on 27th of September, when you looked at all the different groups that came to support you - the unemployed, women supporters, pensioners, working people, environmentalists, reclaim the street activists - what did you see? Was it a working class in movement to establish another kind of politics, or just so many social groups simply drawn together to fight a common enemy?

Sue: I definitely felt there was a common political aim there. People are starting to get together to form bigger groups in order to fight over common issues, and on this basis to forget some of their differences.

Doreen: I can detect that other social movements alongside more traditional groups like workers and pensioners are moving together more. Also, by joining the likes of us and workers and pensioners on the recent march and rally, I think younger people, who were largely politically passive before, are beginning to think 'well yeh we can change things if we all get together'. We can see that people are, slowly, over the last two years, getting their confidence back.

Sue: I felt that the march and rally was saying to people that you can do it, you can fight for change. The first anniversary march in September 1996 was a success in its own right, but people on the outskirts were either, ignoring you, shaking their heads, or else saying we could not possibly win. The situation was different on the recent second anniversary march.

Mary: Yes people were clapping us and encouraging us all along the route, saying we could do it. They felt an affinity with us.

Doreen: You know we have all had an education in this dispute. I think it is fair to say that we all know that this isn't just a fight for the Liverpool dockers, it's a class struggle, it's a fight for the whole of the working class and not just nationally, but internationally. I think we all understand that now don't we?

All: Oh yes!

PK: It has been said on a number of occasions that the real fight is for social justice and the future generation. What sort of future do you think we should be building for the future generation?

Teresa: Its basically about ensuring a good standard of living for everyone.

Sue: You want your children to go through life feeling free, not to be dictated to, not to be owned in any way by people, but to have a good life. Justice is also about teaching your children to fight against casual labour. We've been treated like criminals, we don't want this for the kids. Our kids can hold their head up high by our example and learn from us.

Doreen: For me the fight for future social justice is about the fight for our children to be able to have work, to be able to house and feed their own families and to have a good standard of healthcare and education. For me our struggle right now is part of all of that. You can't divorce any of it, its all integrated, that's what I've discovered over the last two years; they're not separate issues, are they, they're all part of the one cake. Everyone that is in dispute is fighting social injustice.

PK: We live in a period of history where people are unsure about future progress. There is increasingly a tacit acceptance that the present social arrangement does not work, but many also believe that socialism too has either failed us or is unrealisable. Given this is your vision of the future described above one inspired by socialism?

Sue: My own feeling is that we need to create a People's Party to realise social justice.

Doreen: As far as I'm concerned I don't think you need a label; I don't see it through 'socialism' or 'communism', etc, there are too many different political points of view, which one label cannot express. I think people have got to stop putting labels on things and just act together. Forget your Trotsky's, Marx and Engels, don't mention these people because with their names comes a label which divides us. As Sue has said we should be forming a 'Peoples Party' to help realise social justice in the future.

PK: Many thanks for your time and co-operation.

(email 113121.3463@compuserve.com).