24.10.2007
A tiny step forward
Alan Stevens reports on the London conference of the National Shop Stewards Network
Following the founding of the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) in July, four regional conferences have been organised (see www.shopstewards.net). The first took place in London on October 21.
The event began with an address by the national chair of the NSSN, followed by three platform speeches, with discussion from the floor limited to 30 minutes for the first session. Then we broke up into three themed workshops and reconvened to hear two more top-table speakers to close. In other words, it was all very staged: beginning and ending with something to inspire us, the conference aimed to get on with the practical tasks in between. Debate was only token.
So the more thoughtful elements in evidence at the founding conference on this occasion had their attention directed to the job of building the network. The theme seems to be 'Let's not think about it - let's do it'. Two main trends arrive at this pragmatic consensus from different directions.
Firstly, the traditional 'non-politicals' (in the sense of not being of the organised left) - militants that Bob Crow and others wish to bring together in order to bypass the groups. For them the left is a hive of fractious sects that are unrepresentative and ineffectual. Instead they want what they see as traditional bona fide working class representatives who have some influence on the rank and file. It is not surprising that such militants are to be found mainly in two of the unions that managed to survive the Thatcher years relatively unscathed - the Rail, Maritime and Transport union and the Communication Workers Union.
Secondly, the Socialist Party, the dominant left group in the NSSN. It is completely wedded to economism and merges into the bureaucratic union machinery to a far greater extent than any other left group - although the others tend to have a similar approach. Because the SP is itself a significant part of the union bureaucracy, it has been able to achieve a meeting of minds with the 'non-politicals' to a greater extent than the SWP with its Organising for Fighting Unions.
The RMT put up the money, provided the impetus and drew in some of the traditional elements, but the Socialist Party has provided a large number of activists and plays an important organising role. It certainly dominates on the national steering committee and in London too. For now, there is a convergence between these two forces. Both agree on the need to build a shop stewards network and to advance trade union politics. Problematic and inadequate though this is, it still represents forward movement.
NSSN national chair Dave Chapple (CWU) exemplified the viewpoint of the 'non-politicals'. He referred to the establishment of a national shop stewards movement 90 years ago, started, like the NSSN, by a few hundred people. I think he was using a bit of poetic licence, but an examination of history would certainly throw up many useful lessons.
He made a point of saying that this "attempt to rebuild trade unionism came out of one of the trade unions, the RMT. It hasn't come out of some fairly narrow project." He added that this is "a shop steward organisation - people trusted and elected by others" - and "personally I think the job is to build the network - we are too small to pontificate". Later in one of the workshops he reminded us the RMT is insisting on a clause providing for non-interference in the affairs of official union bodies and, as the RMT had put a lot of money up, we shouldn't "antagonise them".
Comrade Chapple sees the need to transcend sectional union struggles, but is understandably frustrated by an unrepresentative and divided left promoting their own narrow agendas and unable to deliver effective solidarity. However, as yet there is no general upsurge and not much militancy. The looming battles centre on the civil service and local government, where the organised left predominates - and here we have a host of problems.
The battles fought by the likes of the RMT and CWU have a far more significant base of support amongst their membership than the more limited actions by, say, Unison and PCS. There is a blue collar-white collar divide in terms of connection with the rank and file. The white collar struggles are dominated completely by the top union bureaucrats (including some completely submerged lefts), with activists exhorting action in the hope that workers will somehow spontaneously achieve consciousness.
Many on the left are fully incorporated into the union bureaucracy, especially at the lower levels. Technically, they pass Bob Crow's 'bona fide' criterion, but in reality most have walked into uncontested positions which they have retained over years of inaction and have been tied up keeping the union machinery functioning. They need to relate to ordinary members, but do not have the experience and democratic culture or the strategic vision and tactical agility to be able to do so effectively. Within the realm of trade union politics the left are not as good as Bob Crow's old-style traditional militants, who tend to be a lot closer and more answerable to the rank and file.
The bureaucratic centralist culture of most of the existing left has enabled its members to settle easily into union bureaucratic machinery designed largely by the right wing to stifle democracy. This means that the left cannot begin to build a genuine rank and file movement without sorting out its own bad practice and lack of strategic perspective. There is no sign that this problem is even recognised.
It is possible for unions such as the RMT, CWU or Prison Officers Association to win battles because they can make a dramatic impact in one or two days. For the bulk of unions, though, this is not the case. For local government, civil service and other workers without that immediate industrial muscle sufficient strength sustained over weeks and months has to be built - and they cannot rely on stronger sections when they have not sorted themselves out. And there is no rank and file involvement of any significance in the public sector. Yet even the more powerful unions like the RMT cannot stand alone for long without being picked off.
Building a shop stewards network cannot solve this organisational problem - and even if it could it would not be sufficient. Trade union politics in itself, however well organised and militant, can never be enough. Its supersession was attempted 90 years ago with the founding of the Communist Party. History must be viewed critically and the 'official' communists' degeneration was slow, but even in the 70s the CPGB still had sufficient industrial muscle to bring down a Tory government. With the gradual collapse of the Communist Party through the 80s, the best-organised sections of the working class were picked off one by one.
For more than 20 years the gap left by a decrepit Communist Party has not been filled. The left not only stands in the way of building the party we need; it stands in the way even of effective trade union politics because it does not know how to organise where it is strong - in the biggest sector, the public sector.
The NSSN is a tiny step forward for trade union politics. It could become something more powerful, but not until the left starts to get its act together and focuses on what is actually necessary to advance the interests of our class.