Only a United Anti-cuts Campaign based on strikes and occupations will defeat the Coalition assault
All serious revolutionary socialists must agitate for strikes and occupations as the basis for the unity of all the local and national anti-cuts campaigns to defeat the government assault. These are an expression within the working class of the urgently felt necessity to fight to survive the deepening crisis of capitalism. But of course the leaderships of these local and national campaigns are not revolutionaries (despite the protestations of some!) and have in general an ill-conceived radical reformist solution to the crisis and not a revolutionary one. In fact most of these leaders are totally opposed to revolution, denouncing those that propose transitional demands that tend in that direction as ‘sectarians’ and ‘trouble-makers’. How could this be otherwise given their history of centrist practice for decades?
We have to therefore ask these fundamental questions of the campaigns. Are they merely seeking to address tasks that start and end in ‘resistance’ or ‘defence‘? If that be so it is a correct starting point; no rational mind can argue against making defence of those social gains that resulted in common welfare interests in today’s society. Those who cannot defend old gains can never make new ones.
The first and most vital question then is; what then, what is their perspective, to where do they want to go after ‘resistance and defence’? The second question is insolubly linked to the first; what forms of organisational structures are needed to enable that work to proceed in the most democratic form which can give voice to the struggles of the ranks of the working class and those who fight best for their cause of revolutionary socialism?
To win this struggle we must have strikes and occupations as our basic weapons. To achieve those we must fight the trade union bureaucracies. To effectively fight those we must build a rank-and-file movement. That was why we participated in the Jerry Hicks for Unite General Secretary campaign and that is what we are seeking to build out of the various elements that precipitated in that movement and others.
The Coalition of Resistance Conference
The Coalition of Resistance (CoR) Conference on 27th November has shown by its 1,300 attendance that many old and new factors are on the stage and in the audience declaring readiness to combine for a fight with the present government. The conference was organised mainly by Counterfire, the right wing grouping that split from the SWP. It combined elements of bureaucratically controlled syndicalism (Unite’s Len McCluskey), parliamentarianism, the British Road to Socialism, (Tony Benn) and abstract theory as a cover for thoroughgoing right-wing opportunism (John Rees).
What serious class fighter is not today inspired by the militant response of the students in Britain to the Con-Dem coalition cuts through educational fees increases? The students have shown by example, have inspired the ranks of the working class and have thereby put huge pressure on all trade union leaders to make some token resistance of their own. This is what happened in France back in 1968, but we must work for a better outcome today.
The bureaucrats have worked might and main over the years to contain the struggles of their members within individual TU regiments using the ’anti-union laws’ as an excuse. They are top down wary of any initiative which may provoke ‘a break-out’ of uncontrollable militancy which may/can subsequently then fall into the hands of the rank-and-file militants. This could escape their direction and control and then offer the prospect of a real fight and real successes to an aroused and united membership.
Students, despite their youth and militancy, start from a separate existence in an educational environment and are not the working class, cannot substitute for it or become a new ‘revolutionary vanguard’. They cannot become either junior ranks or officers in this class war against the government. Moreover they are fighting on a very limited and politically naïve basis, which is itself hostage to many years of false hopes promoted by the parliamentary democracy obfuscation of which Benn and his left-talking ilk are front-rankers.
The students are being channelled primarily into exposing the Lib Dem MPs’ hypocrisy on tuition fees thereby taking the pressure off the Tories who lead the Coalition. Nevertheless, in their size, mobilisation and militancy they have demonstrated a great latent potential and must be encouraged to adopt a deeper labour movement orientation and link up with the working class in the various anti-cuts campaigns now proliferating throughout Britain, Ireland and Europe.
We must fight the class struggle where it is at, in the mass trade union movement and in the Labour party. Here putting theory into practice is very problematic for Counterfire. It supported Len McCluskey in the Unite general secretary election and is obviously tracking close to those elements within the SWP who supported him in opposition to the more leftist rank-and-filer Jerry Hicks for General Secretary of Unite. Their aim was to advance their own careers in the TU bureaucracy and so increase the ‘influence’ of the SWP within the labour movement. That path is strewn with hidden minefields; we have already seen what it leads by the opportunist trajectory of Jane Loftus, the CWU (post workers union) President eventually forced to resign from the SWP for backing the CWU Executive in the sell-out of the strikes a year ago. Counterfire’s Alex Snowdon, in his introduction to Brian Pearce's classic article Some Past Rank-and-File Movements, justifies the group’s capitulation to the left bureaucrats thus:
“There are two basic divisions inside the trade unions. One is the division between left and right - including contests between left-wing and right-wing candidates for leading positions in the unions. The other division is between the bureaucracy and the grassroots members.”
So the CoR supported a left bureaucrat against a more left rank-and-filer because these are two unconnected basic divisions of the class struggle!
Two other tendencies are involved in the CoR. The movementist Socialist Resistance (USFI) who had split from Respect over George Galloway’s intention to stand for the Holyrood parliament in Glasgow next May. SR are committed to supporting the Scottish Socialist Party, currently acting as super grasses for the state and the News of the World to jail Tommy Sheridan. Workers Power are also involved in an attempt to win some more student recruits. The traditional weakness of Workers Power, its lack of working class members, will only be made much worse by this new opportunist orientation.
National Shop Stewards Network launches its own anti-cuts campaign
At its Steering Committee meeting on 4 December the Socialist Party-dominated National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) decided to form an NSSN All-Britain anti-cuts Campaign by 22 votes to 16. Against this sectarian move, opposed by the Chair, Dave Chapple, and others, the SP put forward various leftist arguments and correct criticisms of the RTW and CoR like "we wish to collaborate with all local and national organisations. However, we cannot accept a top-down approach adopted by some organising the fight against the cuts". They pointed to the ‘success’ of the anti-poll tax campaign as the model for the fight. Leaving aside that this was a pyrrhic victory, the poll tax was replaced by the only slightly fairer council tax and John Major was elected for the Tories in the subsequent general election the real comparison was with the rate capping struggles led by the left Labour councils in the mid-to-late 80s, in particular those in the GLC, Lambeth and Liverpool. So when the Socialist says “We cannot accept smaller cuts over a longer period, as advocated by Labour-in-opposition against the big axe and swingeing cuts of the Con-Dem government" we must fully support the political sentiment but we must remember that is just what the parent organisation of the Socialist Party, Militant, did in Liverpool back then. We are therefore obliged to examine just what did happen in Liverpool.
Workers Liberty fills in the details:
“In early July (1884) the council leaders announced... that they had done a deal with the government. The Tories would give Liverpool a little more money. They would permit fancy accounting to shuffle deficits into the following financial year. The council would make a 17% rate rise and balance its budget.
Militant hailed this as "a 95% victory". Actually, Derek Hatton of Militant (formally deputy leader of the council, but in fact the chief figure) would recount later, in an autobiography that they had been told by a Tory MP what was really going on. "We had to tell Patrick [Jenkin, the Tory government minister] to give you the money. At this stage we want Scargill [the miners' union leader]. He’s our priority. But we’ll come for you later".
Militant left the miners in the lurch, in return for a sop. And now it complied. That was the point at which Ken Livingstone broke decisively from his left-wing past. He called for the Labour left to reconcile itself with Labour leader Neil Kinnock, who was shifting the party to the right as fast as he could, and declared blatantly: "I’m for manipulative politics… the cynical soft-sell"...In 1986 Liverpool, still under Militant leadership, would set a routine cuts budget” http://www.workersliberty.org/
They had made the self-admitted “major tactical error” of issuing 90 days' notice of redundancy in September. This "purely legal device" destroyed their credibility with the workforce and was used as a sick to beat them by the hostile mass media and all establishment political parties. Their call for a council-wide strike was rejected because it was too late and their ridiculous vacillations made clear would never openly confront the government and state. Just to confirm this analysis after the poll tax riot of 1990 Militant and the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation leaders Steve Nally and Tommy Sheridan denounced the ‘rioters’ on TV and threatened to 'name names'. And this ‘model’ the SP now wish to emulate.
What demands on local councils?
The Guardian online on 13 December exposes the vicious class hatred behind the cuts:
“deprived inner-city areas of London and large cities in the north are facing the most drastic reductions of up to 8.9% this year alone, with the shires and county councils relatively protected by their burgeoning council tax revenue. The Local Government Association labelled the cuts the "toughest in living memory".
Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Manchester, Rochdale, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Doncaster and South Tyneside are among the 36 local authorities that take the maximum cut of 8.9%. Meanwhile Dorset gets a 0.25% increase in funding and Windsor and Maidenhead, Poole, West Sussex, Wokingham, Richmond upon Thames and Buckinghamshire all get cuts of 1% or below.”
What demands do we make on Labour councillors? The World to Win blog, where Ted Knight has big influence, in 'Carrying out orders' is no defence for Labour councillors suggests:
“If any of them had an ounce of political courage, Labour councillors who control most major authorities would resign their seats and fight bye-elections on the pledge of refusing to draw up and pass a cuts budget. They would mobilise their communities and council trade unions to fight the Coalition in the way Lambeth Council of the early 1980s fought the Thatcher government. But don’t hold your breath on this one. Instead, they intend to pass on the cuts and smash services.”
The resigning tactic may seem ultra-left to some because it would mean the end of the careers in the Labour party for the rebels. But the names of the councillors in the 1921 Poplar Rates Rebellion and Clay Cross in Derbyshire in 1972-3 are remembered as true fighters for the working class. Derek Hatton, Livingstone and their ilk are rightly despised as sell-outs.
Underwhelmed by the CoR conference
Pete Firmin, chair of Brent TUC, made the following points in contrast to those who were blinded by the large numbers attending the CoR conference without looking at the quality offered.
“I was in that small majority that was underwhelmed by the conference. Most people, including, apparently, Liam (MacUaid, in whose blog this first appeared), saw the numbers and didn’t look too closely at the content. The inordinately large number of platform speakers in the plenaries (which, apart from anything else, meant no discussion) either told us what we already knew in terms of the government plans or resorted to large dollops of hyperbole, promising actions which, with a little reflection, are undeliverable. Such may provide for warm feelings, but does little to help the movement get to grips with the real problems facing it.
The real “elephant in the room” though was the total absence of any mention or discussion of the role of the Labour Party and Labour Councils in relation to the cuts. Many anti-cuts committees around the country face the issue of how to relate to Labour Councillors and Labour-controlled councils. They are many different views on the left about what we do. Not a mention. In fact the workshop on “What should political representatives do” didn’t have anyone who could speak with any authority on the Labour Party on the platform. Bizarre. I'm afraid I even heckled Paul Mackney when he declared from the platform that “the Coalition of resistance works closely with the Labour Representation Committee”, pointing out that the LRC had never once been approached by the CoR.
I’m told some workshops had useful discussions. Good. I’m also told that others limited floor discussion to two minutes. Almost as problematic is the fact that the left seems to want to ignore that the three biggest unions – Unite, UNISON and the GMB are almost silent on the cuts. Yes, action by FBU, RMT, UCU, NUS etc. is great, but it shouldn’t blind us to the obstacles we face. Maybe McCluskey will change this, but excuse me if his record around the BA dispute doesn’t inspire me with confidence.
This weekend London region UNITE were supposed to be organising a `weekend of action’ (stalls etc) against the cuts, which they abandoned due to lack of interest….And why is it that virtually no section of the left mentions the government’s first wholesale privatisation, which is likely to be passed by parliament before the end of the year? Excuse me if I think that accepting 122 people on to the National Council from the conference isn’t the epitome of democracy when conference isn’t even informed as to who they are. But no worries, no doubt our now permanent leaders of campaigns – Rees, German, etc are safely in the leadership of CoR”
Workers’ democracy is the lifeblood of the labour movement
There we have it. This is a left version of ‘we’re all in this together’ with a conference that was really a rally to enhance the credential of the leadership, self-appointed and no facility for real discussion or any decision making at all. All big meetings of the left today have plenary sessions filled with ‘big name ‘speakers; the same old faces who make the same old boring (once you have heard them for the umpteenth time) reformist speeches about ‘uniting the left’ behind the parliamentary road to socialism. Tony Benn is becoming more and more insistent that the ‘sectarians’ (read revolutionaries) must be driven out of the movement, Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka propose a left TU version of the same message and the likes of Dot Gibson seeks to unite everyone under the populist Morning Star-drafted British Road to Socialism that is the Peoples Charter. The format is well established now over the last fifteen to twenty years, really since the eclipse of the left in the Labour party following the collapse of the rate capping struggle and after the defeat of the miners in 1985 and the Wapping printers in 1986-7.
In fact the only one of these events that was inspiring of late was the Right to Work launch in Manchester in January 2010 where the invited ‘big names’ opted for the Morning Star event in London instead and we were ‘left’ with the far better rank and file militants to inspire us.
Here is the list of speakers: Tony Kearns (CWU), Pete Murray (NUJ), Jerry Hicks (Unite), Mark Smith (former Vestas worker), Paul Brandon (Unite bus worker), Nahella Ashraf (chair, Greater Manchester Stop the War), Dave Chapple (Chair National Shop Stewards Network), Clara Osagiede (RMT cleaners’ secretary), Dot Gibson (General Secretary, National Pensioners Convention). Whatever disagreements we may have with these the majority are from the ranks of the working class and so a vital part of the struggle.
There was a far more democratic, if haphazard election, to a limited steering committee of 25, unlike the ridiculous 122 ‘elected’ without being named at the CoR ‘conference’. When Blair practically shut down democracy in the Labour party conference and throughout the party the ‘far left’ mimicked his bureaucratic imposition with a left version of it themselves. The Labour Representation Committees conference is the only one that adheres to some democratic structures; motions can be submitted, discussion is organised on these and a national committee is nominated and elected at the conference, even if the politics is far more obviously reformist.
The NSSN has some good democratic practices like refusing union officials votes but no motions are allowed and democratic debate therefore signifies nothing beyond the speeches of delegates who wish to make ‘points’ which can never be tested by motion and voting. Bob Crow always sets the limits on where the NSSN is going, and non-interference in the internal affairs of unions means they can never support any candidate for elections although clearly a majority far larger than the SP itself supported the bureaucrat McCluskey against the rank-and-filer Hicks in the Unite Gen Sec elections. And is a one-day conference from 10am to 5pm (max) really long enough to debate and decide anything of substance? - we need at least two days to make any progress, with ‘rallying’ speeches condensed to a few current disputes. Serious work not bombast!
Therefore it is the responsibility of all serious revolutionaries to fight for the unity of the anti-cuts campaigns on this type, i.e., on a democratically structured class struggle basis. Crucially we must have a revolutionary perspective, which is what Militant, Livingstone and Ted Knight lacked in the 80s. If we strike and occupy to prevent the cuts we must build up local Committees of Action which have the possibility of moving in the direction of dual power. To do this they MUST be democratically structured, in defying the government they must be prepared to bring down the government in general strike action. Calling for a general strike without such preparation is simply ultra-left posturing and could only lead to a disastrous defeat like 1926.
That is what Militant and the left Labour councils could have done in 1985 alongside the miners. But that would raise the question of state power. Having established unchallenged control of the NSSN the Socialist Party are clearly set to embark a separate project for their own party building schemes. Will that not be at best a replay of the Hatton debacle in Liverpool? They have developed from the 1950s a theoretical justification of the disastrous parliamentary road to socialism adopted in Liverpool. There they refused to raise the possibility of a decisive confrontation with the Tories. Rather that facing down the government in such a confrontation they accepted the sop, as the Tory MP put it.
All three rival Campaigns, the Coalition of Resistance Against Cuts & Privatisation, the Right to Work and the National Shop Stewards Network reject these cuts as “simply malicious ideological vandalism, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest” (CoR) and not as a reflection of the structural crisis of capitalism. Therefore their central perspective is the ‘soft power’ of rally and protest to force reform and not the ‘hard power’ of strike and occupation which raise the question of workers’ power. Was it the student revolt in France in 1968 or the General strike, the great British miners’ strike of 1984-5 or the poll tax riot of 1990 which fundamentally threatened the future of capitalism? The struggle can never move forward in a revolutionary direction while it is dominated by such perspectives which put the sectarian needs of groups before the needs of class as a whole. Without workers’ democracy, the lifeblood of the labour movement, we cannot forge the ideological cohesion needed to make this transition which can alone lead to victory.
