13.05.2009

Fight for Marxism in the unions

Should we simply vote for the most militant fighter for wages and conditions in union elections? Ben Lewis argues for a more political approach

Comrade Dave Vincent’s report of developments within the Public and Commercial Services union provided an extremely interesting outline of some of the problems facing revolutionaries in a union in which the Socialist Party of England and Wales sits at the helm (‘Contradictions in SP-led Left Unity’, May 7).

A concrete question posed was who to vote for in the election for deputy general secretary, contested by Hugh Lanning (described by comrade Vincent as a Blairite) and John Moloney - a leading militant in the Independent Left rank and file grouping and a member of the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Comrade David Harney (Letters, March 12) described the contest as a “non-choice” and in many ways he is right. As it was, Lanning - supported by the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party and Communist Party of Britain - won the position with 13,755 votes to Moloney’s 11,547.

The question has sparked a discussion within the CPGB between leading IL member Lee Rock and other, predominantly younger, members, such as James Turley and myself. As it throws up fundamental questions about the role of communists in trade unions, I think this discussion should be held publicly - within our own ranks and beyond. First, though, we should consider what communists understand trade unions to be.

Communists and unions

It is beyond doubt that historically trade unions represent a huge advance for the combativity and confidence of our class. Atomised workers are no match for the employers. Unions, however, bring the great strength that comes with organisation and acting in unity. This paves the way for what Karl Marx referred to as the working class’s “guerrilla struggles” with the capitalist class - winning concessions, compromises and defending them when they come under attack.

But it goes without saying that unions, which by definition contain workers of various ideological and political persuasions, cannot meet the full needs of the working class. Those with a trade union consciousness are not the same as those who have a vision beyond capitalism, beyond the market, beyond wage slavery and who understand that in order to liberate the working class one must liberate humanity as a whole. So communists in trade unions should fight to push working class political consciousness in the direction of the class forming itself into a force with a programme for all of society - organising its best and most far-sighted elements into a Communist Party.

As comrade Vincent’s report underlined, no force is currently organising around these politics within the PCS. This reflects a basic problem within the left - its tendency within the unions to act first and foremost as trade unionists rather than as communist politicians.

The notion that working class struggle is primarily about the bread and butter demands of day-to-day life is the common sense of the left, but this is actually a manifestation of Labourism and economism within our ranks - a weakness which has historically been one of the greatest obstacles to workers acting as a class for itself.

John Moloney quite rightly questions the “kind of trade union movement we have and the kind of movement we should want” by standing on a workers’ wage and calling for annual elections for all full-time officials.^[1] He looks to “develop meaningful strategies in place of the NEC’s once-in-a-blue-moon one-day strikes”, correctly attacking the SP for its shameful capitulation over two-tier pensions. But he goes no further than this. What about the struggle for a higher form of society? The need for the working class to counter the crisis of capitalism by struggling for socialism? The type of party we desperately need to organise this? The furthest Moloney goes is to say that we are “fighting with one hand behind our back if we fail to develop a labour movement political challenge to New Labour and the Tories. The sheer breadth of the political attacks that are looming demand that PCS now throws its weight onto the political scales to help develop a working class political alternative to New Labour.”

What would this “working class political alternative” to Gordon Brown and co look like? What politics would it be based on? We have had numerous attempts at ‘new workers’ parties’, and all have failed. Why? Because what we need is not another Labourite bourgeois workers’ party - the original still exists. Originally emerging from the bowels of the trade union bureaucracy, Labour still has organic roots in the working class. The kind of workers’ party we need is a Marxist party that champions democracy in our own movement and in society, consistent internationalism and the independence of our class.

By exclusively focusing on what ‘trade union politics’, comrades in IL are committing the classic sin of economism. In the AWL’s case, this takes on a particularly pernicious form. Their whole scabby record on Iraq has been based on the absurd notion that occupying forces offered “some limited space” for workers to get involved in “class-struggle politics”, as they put it. In this way they failed the test when it came to the overriding democratic question of the occupation, the biggest obstacle to the Iraqi working class winning societal hegemony, by refusing to call for the withdrawal of imperialist troops. For the AWL this was apparently not a class question. It was a dispute that ought to be left to the occupiers and the Islamists! By contrast communists seek to take the lead on all questions, and most of all questions of democracy, of who rules.

A student analogy

Economism can also take less pernicious forms. When I raised criticisms of unconditionally voting for Moloney, comrade Lee Rock dismissed this as sectarian. Not without a certain condescension, he said: “This, quite frankly, is not student politics we are talking about here.” Now, anybody who reads this paper regularly will know that many Communist Students and CPGB writers have argued against the philistine notion that the National Union of Students is a trade union in the sense that unions like PCS, Unison and Aslef are.

But this is not what Lee is referring to. Statements like his reflect precisely the ‘common sense’ of the left on trade union politics and economism - that trade union politics is all about the ‘bread and butter’ of pay, conditions, pensions, etc. Whilst high politics might be fair enough for students who doss around and read books, they are absurd in the real world of the workplace.

So how should we have voted? Well, in terms of elections there are no principles absolutely set in stone, no shopping list which must be completely fulfilled before a vote can be cast. Our tactics are based on what can best advance the education and interests of the working class as a whole.

In this sense I think that an analogy with student politics actually works very well. As is well known, we in Communist Students refused to vote for AWLer Heather Shaw for the NUS executive unless she publicly called for the immediate withdrawal of UK occupying forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Back then, we were assured by other AWLers that Heather had a minority view on the ‘troops out now’ issue. Whether this was true or was just about trying to win votes I do not know. But anyway, in politics there is no such thing as a private position.

So when Heather refused to openly state her position, we tactically made a point by not voting for her. As it was, this really did matter as she missed election by just one vote. Hard lines. Many lefties at the time simply could not see what we were doing. One comrade who actually voted CS first preference and Heather Shaw second preference was particularly flummoxed. But following the later notorious article of AWL leader Sean Matgamna, in which he excused any Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, and the subsequent apologetic response from AWL cadre, he later admitted that we were spot on.^[2]

Surely such tactics should have applied to Moloney too? Comrade Rock points out that Moloney and his comrades voted for PCS to affiliate to Hands Off the People of Iran. Good. But where was the reporting of this in the AWL’s Solidarity? It was conspicuously absent. Indeed, the AWL has (unsuccessfully) bent over backwards to try and wreck the solidarity that Hopi has generated and the support it has won - not just through rubbish leaflets about Hopi’s alleged ‘softness’ on the Iranian regime (tell that to our comrades who have done time in the regime’s prisons); not just through bilge about Hopi’s alleged “Iranian defencism” and support for a “mullahs’ bomb”, but by actually looking to undercut the campaign through front alternatives. Anyone remember Middle East Workers’ Solidarity? Such was the depth of support it won, it effectively ceased to exist when oppositionist David Broder left the AWL. Or what about Iranian Student Solidarity, that inspiring organisation which held a grand total of one meeting?

Apparently, Moloney is also in the (dwindling) AWL minority for ‘troops out now’. However, like Heather Shaw, he does not say so publicly and certainly did not include it in his election material. But silence is simply not good enough, and privately held views do not count. When the leader of an organisation excuses a nuclear strike and prominent members make no comment, it must be assumed they are in agreement. Trade union militants must be clear - Moloney might stand on supportable positions such as a worker’s wage and for annually elected full-time staff, but unless he is willing to openly and publicly distance himself from those like Matgamna and Mark “Israel had a point in Gaza” Osborn, another leading AWLer, then he is effectively standing on their politics. As such, his election as deputy general secretary would be a retrograde step - not only for PCS members, but for our class as a whole. It would be an awful blow if a prominent union leader added to the Matgamna-style excuses for a nuclear attack on Iran.

If Moloney does have oppositional views, then these should have been brought out into the open. He should have been encouraged to stand up and openly fight the social-imperialists, rather than quietly disagree. In my opinion, what comrades Rock and Vincent should have done before voting was to ask comrade Moloney some basic questions. As PCS deputy general secretary, would you do your utmost to mobilise members to stop a potential attack on Iran? Would you openly argue and agitate amongst the rank and file for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, comrade, we are behind you.

Communism into the unions!

It is high time for communist politics in the unions and a clean break with Labourism and economism. On a small scale, Communist Students has exemplified that one can be successful in raising high politics. It is excellent that comrades Rock and Vincent have successfully promoted Hopi within PCS and even won over the AWLers to support PCS affiliation to it. They should draw heart from this in looking to organise as communists in the PCS.

We should aim to generalise this experience and not simply pass off high politics as something for idealistic young students abstracted from ‘real’ class politics - ie, trade unionism. With only 10% of members bothering to vote, there is clearly a need within the PCS - and other unions - for politics that can inspire workers to a vision of a different society - one which positively supersedes this system which is so palpably rotting in front of our very eyes.

I hope that comrades Vincent and Rock will take part in this much-needed discussion and take a lead in actively promoting such a vision in their union work.

Notes

1. www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/05/01/vote-john-moloney-pcs-deputy-general-secretary
2. ‘What if Israel bombs Iran?’ Solidarity July 24 2008.