A real united front could organise unemployed

[Benjamin Hill]

An article by Mike Macnair in Weekly Worker 802 that analyses the "Right to Work" campaign by the SWP:


A real united front could organise unemployed

Mike Macnair takes a looks ahead to the SWP's 'Right to Work' conference

The Right to Work conference organised by the Socialist Workers Party meets this Saturday, January 30, in Manchester. The organisers say: "Many working people rallied round the postal workers' national fight. And many have also backed the Leeds bin workers, the BA workers, the Superdrug workers and other groups who have taken action. This conference is designed to bring together those networks of resistance and to make them stronger."[1] They also say: "It won't be a talking shop. We want to organise initiatives from the conference. For example, some people have suggested a day of action around welfare 'reform' or a coordinated push to unionise in specific areas, or action to defend and organise migrant workers."

However, there are 12 named speakers listed, plus others "from the Fujitsu strike, Royal Mail dispute, Brighton bins dispute, BA cabin crew, Superdrug … and many more." It is very hard to see how a five and a half hour conference (which on the left's usual track record will start late) can hear all these speakers and take democratic decisions for concrete initiatives.
"Workshops include [emphasis added]: 'How can we stop the jobs massacre?'; 'Fighting privatisation, defending public services'; 'Don't let them rob our pensions!'; 'Jobs, not bombs'; 'After Copenhagen, how can we win a million climate jobs?'; 'The "lost generation"? - students and young workers fighting back'; 'Against racism and the scapegoating of migrant workers'; 'How can workers get a real political voice? - defying the anti-union laws'; 'The welfare reform agenda - fighting for our rights'."

The picture is, in fact, one familiar from other 'broad' initiatives put on by the 'children of 68' far-left leaders recently: a souped-up rally, with "workshops" providing the illusion of grassroots participation in decision-making. This sort of meeting is not wholly worthless, however. It is heart-warming and perhaps raises morale for activists to hear rousing speeches from 'official lefts' and militants involved in disputes and to see that there are lots of other people in other places with similar concerns to their own. I say it perhaps raises morale, though, because anything less than a very large hall very well filled may in reality function to remind people of the current weakness of the workers' movement and the left. Thus the more recent Stop the War demonstrations, with their noticeably declining size, have been a matter of duty rather than raising enthusiasm among participants.

Both the SWP leadership and the Reesite opposition Left Platform characterise the Right to Work 'campaign' as an application of the 'method of the united front' to the economic crisis. That is, an application of the same method they have used in the Stop the War Coalition.[2]

But what exactly is this method, as applied by the SWP? The answer is to find a lowest-common-denominator political basis on which the 'official lefts' can be persuaded to come on board an initiative. The SWP then plays the role of bag-carriers to mobilise forces to attend demos and rallies to hear the 'official lefts' speak; and of gatekeepers or left-flank guards to ensure that nothing happens in the way of decision-making or political statements which are unacceptable to the 'official lefts'. The result is the 'grand old Duke of York' type of politics which union left bureaucrats also employ with their own membership: march them up to the top of the hill ... and march them down again.

The basis upon which the conference has been called is just such a platform of vague left platitudes: "Fight for every job; organise to stop the cuts; defend services and pensions; unite the public and private sectors; demand a million green jobs; jobs, not bombs; defend migrant workers - jobs for all." It is very unlikely that the promised "initiatives from the conference" will amount to much.

The 'Smithite' SWP leadership majority initially resisted the Reesites' arguments for a 'united front' response to the crisis, arguing that unlike the war, which was a single issue, it was hard to apply the same method. The central committee has already retreated from this argument. But it was an unnecessarily timid response to the Reesites' polemic. In reality, a united front 'against the crisis' would be like a united front against the tide. Crises and recessions are a normal and necessary feature of capitalism.

To eliminate the recession - or even to eliminate its immediate consequences in increased unemployment, repossessions and so on - requires the overthrow of capitalist political rule and the beginning of democratic working class planning on at least a European-wide scale. This is not on the immediate agenda, but the basic responsibility of the Marxist left faced with economic crisis is to spread the idea. The 'official lefts' are certainly not going to agree to concrete proposals in this direction. So we get a waffly political platform and a rally-style 'conference' which will allow the SWP and the 'official lefts' to agree.

The SWP's blocs with the 'official lefts' - just like the 'official' Communist Party's very similar blocs before its collapse - are not real united fronts. They are aimed only at unity with the official left wing of the trade union movement and Labour, not with the labour movement as a whole. At the same time, they are also incompatible with the tasks of a Marxist political party - spreading the basic idea of the working class taking over to make a better alternative to capitalism - because the SWP's job in the 'united front' is to hold ideas back to the level acceptable to the 'official lefts'.

A real united front policy in response to the crisis is possible. It would start with a limited task which could in principle be agreed by the whole trade union movement, right and left, and by the majority of the ranks of Labour who still retain some attachment to the cause of the working class (though perhaps by rather fewer Labour MPs). This limited task would be to organise the unemployed and build solidarity between the unemployed and people in work. It is a long-term task, but one which is posed immediately by the effects of the crisis: unemployment has risen and will continue to rise for some time after 'output' has begun to rise.

This is a clear, practical task, though not an easy one - organising the unemployed, fighting the workfare schemes, trade unions organising branches and sections for their unemployed members, and so on. To the extent that it succeeds every union and the cause of the working class more generally will be strengthened. Because it is a clear practical task, it would be possible to organise a real, working conference to bring together activists for genuine discussion and decision-making around it, rather than yet another rally on the basis of empty slogans.

Notes


sites.google (dot) com/site/righttoworkconference; quotations below from this site and pages in it.
See Peter Manson's article, 'Defend Rees-German and the Left Platform' Weekly Worker November 26 2009.

[Benjamin Hill]

And a historical oversight on the NUWM movement in the 1920's and 30's.


Lessons of the NUWM and UWC

Mark Fischer takes a look at the National Unemployed Workers Movement and the Unemployed Workers Charter

In 1986, Communist Party members organised around the factional journal The Leninist launched the Unemployed Workers Charter, a militant campaign for a mass unemployed organisation along the lines of the National Unemployed Workers Movement, founded in the early 1920s. The UWC was a direct response to the 'Jarrow 86' fiasco - a cynical publicity stunt aping the 1936 unemployed march to London and engineered to bolster the chances of the Neil Kinnock-led Labour Party in the 1987 general election. We took the opportunity to contrast the militant tradition of the NUWM with the begging-bowl charity-mongering of Jarrow - both the 1986 version and the 1936 original.

In fact, Jarrow 36 was framed as a direct alternative to the NUWM and its high-profile hunger marches. It was overtly 'non political' - with the exception that it took the overtly political decision to exclude members of the Communist Party and NUWM. The nature of the stunt was illustrated by the fact that "… the divisional agents for both the Conservative and Labour parties were sent ahead to prepare the way and support came from the political right as well as the left. At Harrogate, the Territorial Army took care of the Jarrow crusaders; at Leeds a newspaper owner gave food and drink; at Sheffield the Conservative Party were the hosts, and in Chesterfield it gave meals and accommodation and again in Nottingham" (P Kingsford The hunger marchers in Britain 1920-1940, London 1982, p219).

The NUWM could not have been more different. Established in 1921, under the leadership of a founder-member of the CPGB, Wal Hannington, the NUWM had 100,000 in its ranks at its height. Six spectacular hunger marches were held between 1922 and 1936, beginning in places such as Glasgow and south Wales, and ending in huge demonstrations in London. But it was not all about these well publicised initiatives. The NUWM led countless pickets, street meetings and factory occupations against layoffs. It represented thousands of unemployed men and women in dealings with labour exchange officials. It was a movement, not simply a campaign, with deep and vibrant roots in the class.

So we in The Leninist were always clear that, while we claimed the political heritage of Wal Hannington's organisation - there was even a physical continuity in the shape of our honorary president Jack Dash, legendary dockers' leader and member of the original NUWM - the UWC's primary purpose was to agitate in the ranks of the movement for a reborn NUWM, not present itself as the finished article.

However, that dialogue with the workers' movement took an active form, not simply a journalistic one. The UWC took hundreds of unemployed workers and their supporters to lobby the annual TUC congresses. We mobilised supporters to stand on the picket lines outside dole offices, alongside striking members of the civil servants' union. In one memorable Hackney incident in 1987, we managed to positively deflect the anger that many claimants turning up for their giros initially felt towards the strikers:
"So, led by East London UWC, hundreds of unemployed workers converged on the town hall, where they faced locked doors and a building deserted by all the local Labour Party dignitaries. The door, however, somehow got kicked in (tut, tut …) and nearly 150 unemployed streamed in to demand their rights!" (The Leninist June 4 1987).

Of course, political times have changed massively since the 80s. The reality of unemployed is now largely experienced as a personal tragedy rather than a social phenomenon. This atomised and impotent state for masses of people is the fault of the leadership of the workers' movement - both then and now. As we noted about the failed Employment Training slave-labour initiative of the Tory government, "technically ET is a flop. Politically, however, it has been a runaway success. The Tories have succeeded in establishing the principle of work-for-dole not simply among wide swathes of 'public opinion', but also, crucially, with the TUC and the leadership of the Labour Party" (The Leninist April 10 1988).

The principles we agitated for via the UWC campaign still remain the key demands for the movement in its fight against unemployment.


Organise the unemployed! For independent organisation of the workless to fight for their rights.
For the right of the unemployed to join trade unions, with full membership rights.
Claiming benefits is a right, not a privilege! No work-for-dole, slave-labour 'training' schemes.
The fight against unemployment must be linked to the fight against capitalism!

As the pledge made by members of the first national hunger march in 1922 put it, "… realising that only by the abolition of this hideous capitalist system can the horror of unemployment be removed from our midst, I here and now take upon myself a binding oath, to never cease from active strife against this system until capitalism is abolished and our country and all its resources truly belong to the people" (W Hannington Unemployed struggles 1919-1936 London 1973, p81)

[Martin Blank]

I really wish they'd pick a term other than "right to work". The anti-union right has used that as a slogan to destroy the organization of union shops across the U.S. for decades. In the South, "right to work" means that unions cannot become collective bargaining agents for contract negotiations or health and safety issues. I can just see the Tories and other rightists using the "right to work" slogan to further erode the power of unions, push down wages and living standards, and attack workers' rights. What an ignorant and plain stupid slogan to use.

[ls]

Lol, what I'm wondering is if any of these SWP hacks have ever been to an 'unemployed group'. Because I have, and it has benefited me greatly, also I've organised with other unemployed people.

But hey, let's just build another factional movement that's going to go nowhere based on an idiotic right-wing phrase, I'm sure that'll work out fine because grassroots action is ultra-leftist and useless. :rolleyes:


I really wish they'd pick a term other than "right to work". The anti-union right has used that as a slogan to destroy the organization of union shops across the U.S. for decades. In the South, "right to work" means that unions cannot become collective bargaining agents for contract negotiations or health and safety issues. I can just see the Tories and other rightists using the "right to work" slogan to further erode the power of unions, push down wages and living standards, and attack workers' rights. What an ignorant and plain stupid slogan to use.

It's far more possible they'll just ignore this, because it's probably going to be tiny and pretty much pointless.

[Martin Blank]

It's far more possible they'll just ignore this, because it's probably going to be tiny and pretty much pointless.

They'll probably ignore the movement but co-opt the slogan for themselves. They're overdue to do that anyway.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How about right to zero unemployment?

[Dimentio]

How about right to zero unemployment?

Yes. The right-wing parties in Sweden actually tried to campaign on the issue that they thought that the Swedish unemployment rate (1,5%-2%) was too low, during the 1960's and 1970's. Guess how these parties performed during the elections? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wanted to show how Hyman Minsky's ideas (my Economics thread on public employer of last resort for consumer services) have gone unnoticed by the left.

[alhop10]

Im not sure that the right to work is what rees was talking about in a united front against the recession. I think that idea was rejected. I was at the right to work conference and it felt fresh and energetic. Rather than being an artificial united front over one issue like STW it felt like groups of people who are fighting and willing to fight coming together for support and to organise solidarity and share ideas.

[blake 3:17]

I really wish they'd pick a term other than "right to work". The anti-union right has used that as a slogan to destroy the organization of union shops across the U.S. for decades. In the South, "right to work" means that unions cannot become collective bargaining agents for contract negotiations or health and safety issues. I can just see the Tories and other rightists using the "right to work" slogan to further erode the power of unions, push down wages and living standards, and attack workers' rights. What an ignorant and plain stupid slogan to use.

It's not stupid. USian abuses of language don't need to accomodated by everyone else in the world. Should I not be a democrat and a republican because of your country's parties?

Employment should be a social right. Full employment is an absolutely key demand in the fight for socialism.