11.07.2007

Starting to think

The July 7 RMT-initiated conference to found a National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) was, although not without its contradictions and weaknesses, one of the best union activist meetings I have attended in a long time. It was certainly an indication of a potential to begin rebuilding rank and file union organisation and confidence. Whether it does will depend to a large extent on how the left groups engage with it.

First some positive features that made the conference feel something like a serious and real work-in-progress event. It was not a rally! This was (with some limitations mentioned below) a working conference to discuss and begin the process of building rank and file organisation in and across the unions. It was relatively representative, with shop steward (rather flexibly defined) voting delegates from a reasonable cross-section of unions. In addition there were non-voting observers who nevertheless had speaking rights. There were a significant number of experienced activists from the more tactically agile and class-conscious industrial unions.

The conference was initiated and sponsored by a militant union - albeit as a means on the part of RMT general secretary Bob Crow - of sidestepping the thorny issue of working class political representation. It was also sponsored by PCSU, CWU, POA and what is left of the NUM. It was well organised with a refreshingly comradely and relatively open and democratic culture. The Socialist Workers Party was, save for a handful of their more thoughtful comrades, absent - and this, it has to be said, was a positive bonus. In comparison with Respect's Organising for Fighting Unions rallies, this conference was on a qualitatively higher plane - but the NSSN could very easily founder.

Whilst positive overall, the surface appearance of the conference was something of a gloss over a much more complex and contradictory reality.

To any worker not used to such events it might have seemed like a gathering of largely non-aligned activists. One of the independents on the steering committee even spoke about the network not being dominated by one left group. And here lies a problem - there was a very significant presence from the Socialist Party both on the steering committee and as delegates - but all as politically incognito union activists. The SP did not attempt to dominate, overtly manipulate or otherwise constrain the conference - its approach was softly-softly. It did not attempt to foist its Campaign for a New Workers' Party upon the gathering, but it has positioned itself to take advantage of opportunities that may arise if the network starts to show some promise. The SP may have been seen to act in an inclusive and open manner, but it does have a very definite agenda.

On the other hand (and this is something that influences the tactics of the SP), Bob Crow managed last year to convert his union's decision to consider the development of an alternative political party into the convening of this shop stewards network. Bob does not trust the left and wants to attract 'ordinary' workers to build an alternative via the unions. However, he has no clear plan or idea about it other than individual unions mounting election challenges around single-issue campaigns. He held out the forlorn hope that several of these might then coalesce into the building of a party, although of what type is unclear.

Although there were a few references by speakers to socialism, a socialist party, etc, the party question was not raised seriously. This completely restricts any development of the NSSN to mere trade union politics - reformism. But it fits neatly with the SP's aim of a Labour Party mark two.

The Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain was invisible and, as I say, the SWP had only a few comrades present. There has been some recrimination, with SWPers saying the NSSN coincided and therefore conflicted with this year's Marxism (and was perhaps organised to minimise their attendance), while others have retorted that a delegate union conference is more important than a school-cum-rally and the SWP could have mobilised far more of its union activists, but did not do so because of its shift to 'broad', cross-class politics and the downplaying of rank and file union activity.

I think there may well have been some shenanigans over the organisation - and not only on the part of the SP - in order to make SWP attendance more difficult. But it is probably even more the case that the SWP's priority is a Fighting Unions rally-type approach, combined with the attempt to bring popular frontist ideas into the workers' movement, and it did not want to mess about with what it sees as an SP attempt to promote the CNWP agenda.

There were other weaknesses. For example, you might have expected a reasonable presence from the FBU and GMB, but if they were there at all they were not letting on.

Secondly, there is a real problem with the left's incorporation into the union machinery. So many comrades act as union functionaries at all levels and operate almost entirely within the constraints of the bureaucracy - as lower, middle or even higher-level bureaucrats. It is extraordinary that a small organisation like the SP should hold so many national executive positions. The separation and disconnection of this whole layer from rank and file union members is worse than at any period in the history of the working class. Many on the steering committee of what is supposed to be a network of shop stewards are union executive members and many of the delegates can only be called so loosely (including myself).

Of course, the nature of the period has made rank and file organisation a very difficult problem - but the left has been far too interested in the much easier task of winning positions (often uncontested at the lower levels), promoting resolutions, attending union conferences and generally acting over the heads of the people they are supposed to represent. This fairly consolidated practice operates as a barrier to advance.

The task ahead is enormous and there is little clarity about problems and solutions. If the left does not face up to these issues self-critically and honestly and recognise its own misconceived short-term practice, there can be little hope that we will be able to actually lead workers in struggle, let alone in a political way.

Despite such problems, this initial conference was all the better for at least talking about forms of trade union organisation. Any basic rank and file union-building will be positive in the current situation, but at some stage more fundamental questions will have to be resolved, along with a move into the realm of politics.

Despite all these weaknesses and problems the conference was interesting and held out some hope that comrades are starting to think.