page 5

Salient Interview

Robin Blackburn, described variously as an "English Left-Wing Revolutionary" and "England's version of Danny the Red" was employed as a lecturer in Sociology at the London School of Economics until he was dismissed for supporting some of the demands of student militants. Mr Blackburn spoke at this year's Curious Cove congress.

What do you find wrong with the present system of university administration in Britain?

Well it's what's wrong with the administration of Universities in a great many countries. That is that real decisions are made not by the people who work in the university—that is by students and staff—but are made rather by outside Governors. The Board of Governors at the school where I worked, the London School of Economics, was a real cameo of the British Establishment. The members included the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Trade Unionist (to represent that side). These people were responsible for making the long and medium range decisions. Of course, day to day running was left in the hands of a much smaller group. This smaller group included a number of professional administrators who had made a career of university administration. All these people made the decisions that governed the life and work of all the students. Now that's the first thing that's wrong—the general mode of government and running of the university. However, I would criticise also the decisions they make in substance; not just the way they reach them or who reaches them, but what those decisions are. I suppose, above all, the fact that the competitive exam system pushes people into a pattern. There is a mania for sorting people out into boxes—1st class mind, 2nd class mind, 3rd class mind..........

And the student power movement is a reaction to this?

Yes, I should say, though, that it is also a reaction to issues which originate outside the university. Student unrest often revolves around the involvement of our country in questions of national liberation. The universities in the advances capitalist countries have become deeply involved in the capitalist system. In Britain, for example, we found that members of London University were advising the American Government on how to conduct their war in Vietnam. However, Universities haven't suddenly acquired this role. I'm afraid that they've long had the role of assistants to the development of Imperialist Colonialism. There is a new sort of Colonialism within our society that the Universities are helping to evolve. It's not so much the colonisation of different lands, although that does go on, but rather more the colonisation of everyday life in our countries. What I mean by that is that, in order to preserve the structure of late Capitalist Society, it's necessary to produce a whole host of technicians and social engineers.

It was stated recently by a New Zealand educationalist, Mr Jack Shall or ass, that 'universities will become either vital communities with a clear ethical purpose or mere factories in the productive chain'. Do you agree with this?

Well, to some extent. The image of the factory certainly seems to apply so far as the idea of cranking out large members of students with the appropriate degree is concerned. I'm trying, however, to suggest another dimension to this. As your question implies universities are becoming degree factories; by doing this—cranking out more and more specialists—they are making capitalist society itself more like a machine or factory where the maximum amount is produced for the minimum cost. One of the most common features in the development of universities has been the burgeoning growth of the social sciences; here the people are trained who in the future are going to be the personnel managers, the political pundits, those working in the media and so on—the growing points of late capitalist society. These are the men who will make our societies more efficient in a machine-like sense.

How, specifically, are students in Britain reacting to this?

Well, one very often finds that the most militant advocates of student power come from precisely these areas. They don't want to become manipulators because the system requires that they shall manipulate themselves through the examination system. They find the role which they have been assigned degrading and they reject it and their rejection often spreads to many other sections.

So students seek the democratization of University administration in order that they may prevent this?

Yes, Also democratization in terms of entry to the University. Because of the entrance requirement Universities choose they often exclude racial minorities and make it difficult for the sons of members of the working-class to attend University. The proportion of working-class children going to University in Britain is now no higher than it was before the Second World War—2%. So when we talk about democratization of the Universities we know that this can't be achieved without changing society as a whole.

How far can students legitimately go in their demands?

Well, I think that all decisions which are made in the University which relate to the teaching which students receive are decisions which students ought to have a share in making. I think that both students and teachers ought to be in the position of making all such decisions together.

Obviously you don't see student power confining itself to the Universities but see it as affecting society as a whole. Do you see students as a strong pressure group?

Well, they already have become, in spite of their relatively small numbers, an important political factor. I think the reason is that, politically speaking, our society is rather dead. The reason why late capitalist society survives in spite of the evident fact that it suppresses much of the potentiality of modern technology is because most of the people most of the time are in a state of passivity towards the general organization. Obviously the militant students are rejecting the overall design. In this way they've come to have an influence greatly in excess of their actual numbers.

Don't you think that by planning collectivist action, the Student Power Movement is moving further away from the individualism which, from what you have said, seems to be its goal?

Well, what they're doing is creating a new collective programme. All individualism rests, not on the isolated individual but on the particular collective framework. It requires the backdrop of a particular mode of social organization. The present mode of social organisation happens to be built on a very high degree of individual competition but actually results in an increasing loss of identity. People have to, in a way, resemble one another more and more in order to get ahead in the rat-race. They have to acquire the same skills, the same orientation to life. I think in a different social organization one could have a flowering of truer individuality.

Can you foresee any possibility of a strong student-worker alliance?

There are already some signs of it. For example, the Student Power Movement is ready to co-operate with Trade Unions and attracts quite a lot of support from the Union rank and file. Shop stewards are very interested both in the general idea of industry under worker control, and industrial democracy. Just as students are trying to assert some sort of control, even if only in University administration, workers are endeavouring to assert some minimal degree of control over management.

It has been said that many student activists see themselves and the universities as the sole remaining base for the transformation of society. What is your reaction to this?

Well, I think they're certainly the most active constant revolutionary clement in Western Society. However, there are other groups which are very militant—sometimes in a more important way than students. I'm thinking about the Black Power Movement in the United States, or, in my own country, the movement among the Irish in Northern Ireland. This movement of course, includes students. I don't think that students—although they're a very important element—are as isolated as you would imply there.

How much support do the militant students get from the general student body?

I would say that, at the present time, a disjunction has developed between the political awareness of the militant minority and the political awareness of the majority of students. This militant minority has undergone a process of politicisation and its members have very often been attracted to one or another forms of Marxism. The militant vanguards haven't yet learned how to orient themselves towards the majority of students without in any way abandoning the greater political clarity that they themselves gain through their own experiences of militant action.

Do you think this closer orientation will come?

This is rather an open question. I would say that in this sense we've got a crisis in the whole new left. That it has succeeded in producing a new generation of revolutionaries is in itself a remarkable fact. It may be a small number ofpeople but it makes a big change in the terms of the politics of the societies affected to have even small numbers of revolutionaries where previously there were practically none. The problem for these revolutionaries, however, is to achieve a means of communicating politically with both their fellow students and, of course, with other social classes outside the university.

Do you foresee a greater degree of co—operation between the students on an international basis?

Informally, yes. I don't think that the pre-conditions exist for any formal link-up between student organisations because these organisations are, as I say, themselves fairly fragmented within each country.

Have you gained any impression of the situation in New Zealand which could provide the basis of a comparison with the UK?

Well, obviously the student movement here is younger and has less experience of militant action that the movement has in some other countries. At the same time, I am quite struck by the similarity of the problems which the movement faces. Perhaps the thing which I have noticed most particularly is that the most militant wing of the youth movement is not purely student or indeed possibly not even predominantly student in recruitment. I'm speaking, of course, of the PYM. I think that this is a very interesting feature of the New Zealand situation—the emergence of a militant youth movement which is able to recruit from a section of working class as well as from the student population.

New Zealand universities are coming under increasing attack from the Minister of Finance who seems to be concerned with what he terms the wastage that goes on in universities. Do you think that students should endeavour to justify themselves?

I think that you'll find that there are a number of vested interests who will defend the function of the university within this society but whether this occurs or not, it is not the job of militant students to do so. I think it's very important for militant students not to try to fight other peoples' battles for them. Above all, I don't think they ought to be blackmailed by the threat of the right into restraining their own demands or actions. I think that the prevailing governments in the Western world are already very right-wing and repressive. But I don't think that there's any convincing case to be made that they can become decisively more right-wing or repressive. I don't think that fascism is a serious danger in our countries because I don't think that the ruling class in any of the advanced capitalist countries is sufficiently weak to be prepared to give up some of its power to an autonomous political force. Equally I don't think such an autonomous political force—that is a fascist movement—actually exists in any capitalist country.