Unite votes to stay a union: defence workers and McCluskey give ‘Marxists’ a lesson in Trade unionism

July 13, 2016 at 8:38 am (class, Johnny Lewis, Marxism, solidarity, unions, Unite the union, workers)

Johnny Lewis reports from Unite’s policy conference:

The first big debate of Unite’s conference concerned Trident: conference was confronted with a number of motions, calling for scrapping Trident now and an Executive Statement which argued for opposition in principle to nuclear weapons but; “Unite does not and never will advocate or support any course of public policy which will put at risk jobs or communities. Although in favour of defence diversification “Until there is a government in office ready, willing and able to give cast-iron guarantees on the security of the skilled work and all employment involved, our priority must be to defend and secure our members’ employment”. This Statement was passed overwhelmingly and with it the motions calling for trident to be `scrapped now’ fell.

For the union leadership and the defence workers this debate was not really about trident but the very character of the union, it is fair to say this character was encapsulated in the Statement and in particular no support for policies which `… put at risk jobs or communities’. The resolutions opposing the Statement with their demand of ‘scrap now’ violated that idea of a union’s function. If such a resolution had been passed, while it would not have materially effected defence workers’ jobs, it would have signalled support for a policy which put jobs at risk, and the union would, to use the words of one of the speakers, have “abandoned us”.

Although victory for ‘scrap now’ would have had no material impact on jobs it would have had a very real impact on the union’s unity. Large numbers of defence workers would have left and at best joined the GMB (at worst joining Community or leaving the movement altogether), and who in their right mind could blame them? I don’t think those arguing to ‘scrap’ got the implications for the union – until McCluskey spelled it out in his closing remarks.

With one or two exceptions those opposing the Statement were white collar, from outside manufacturing and from London, while supporters of the Statement were largely manual workers from the industry and from outside of London. This division mirrors Brexit and has been observed within the Labour party. While it is clear the vast majority of the ‘scrap now’ support can be characterised as Corbynistas it is not possible to clearly pigeon hole those supporting the Statement except to say they saw themselves as trade unionists rather than political animals and a majority would not see themselves as Corbyn supporters.

The main problem for the ‘scrap now’ speakers was how to argue a position which if passed would have meant the union’s abandonment of the Trident workers. Unable or unwilling to confront this conundrum they ignored it, speaking in general terms and in equal measure about diversification and the need to support Corbyn – of course the most zealot Corbynistas where those outside the party.

Both these points were easily dealt with by the defence workers: on diversification they pointed out that the ‘scrap now’ advocates were substituting the potential to develop diversification which had been opened up by Corbyn’s victory with the present situation where there are no diversification blueprints and even if these existed the Tory Government is not going to implement them. The diversification argument existed simply as a prop to enable scarp now to avoid arguing there real position `scrap regardless’ of the impact on members or on the union.

The Corbyn argument was of a different order: here the ‘Marxists’ came into their own, and the broad sweep of history and grand strategies alighted on the shoulders of the Unite conference.

Their line of argument went something like this: Unite supports Corbyn; failure to support ‘scrap now’ would be a failure to support him and so give a hostage to Labour’s right. On the other hand supporting ‘scrap now’ would be a massive boost to Corbyn’s struggle in the party and by default the movement which has gathered around him. Needless to say, this missed the mark by some many miles.

If the Corbynistas are a broad socially liberal movement, the self-proclaimed ‘Marxists’ within it should want to move beyond liberalism and build a class-based movement which by definition must include the defence workers. Indeed, building a class movement will largely depend on how far the left wing of the Corbynistas can turn it outward and proselytize among workers such as those in the defence industry. The supposed ‘Marxists’ in this debate provided a master class in how not to build that movement. Most striking was the unintended consequence arising from combining ‘scrap now’ with the Corbyn struggle in the party: the effect was to reduce defence workers to pawns to be sacrificed in the great game that is the left vs right battle within the Party.

That approach illustrates the complete failure of these ‘Marxists’ to recognise the division between the economic and political, and within this division that unions are primarily economic entities. A consequence is these people continually push unions to adopt programmatic demands appropriate to a party rather than a union. In this instance asking conference to supress the union’s core function of defending member’s terms and conditions in pursuit of a political goal, the only possible result was to further repel the defence workers from the left and Corbyn.

The real tragedy in this vignette is that until now the only serious work undertaken on defence diversification has been that of defence industry workers. Now a Corbyn labour party can build on that work harnessing the workers in the industry, their unions and party to formulate diversification blueprints. This approach was central to the Statement:

“Unite commits to campaigning to secure a serious government approach to defence diversification… and urges the Labour Party to give the highest priority to this aspect in it considerations.”

We have then a platform which can not only develop diversification policies but also a process where defence workers will be exposed to the ideas of the left opening the possibility of winning them over to socialism.

Apart from the decisive victory the debate itself was well run and a joy to watch as the defence workers and McCluskey, provided the ‘Marxists’ with a lesson on what is a trade union and how it should function. I hope (but doubt) they will have learnt their lesson.

11 Comments

  1. @pplswar said,

    How long has this Trident debate been dogging the left? Seems like it has its roots in the 1950s anti-nuclear movement? (Forgive the ignorance, I’m a yank.)

    • Jim Denham said,

      You are absolutely correct: it goes back to the 1950’s. And, of course, it caused a big dispute in the Labour Party in 1960: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/gaitskell-speech-fight-again

      • @pplswar said,

        I’m no fan of nuclear weapons, but did the anti-nuclear forces ever present arguments against bilateral/multilateral nuclear disarmament? To me, bilateral/multilateral nuclear disarmament is much preferable to any kind of unilateral moves. Certainly seems more internationalist.

      • Jim Denham said,

        “did the anti-nuclear forces ever present arguments against bilateral/multilateral nuclear disarmament?”

        Not that I’m aware of: for most liberals and left-labour people it was a moral, rather than political stance. CND, however, was from the beginning, politically led by Stalinists who advocated unilateralism for Britain and the west, but supported the “workers’ bomb” for Russia.

  2. Glasgow Working Class said,

    The dilemma the British looney left had after World War 11 was do they support democracy or support the Soviet Union fascists. The looney left are back courtesy off £3 a heid. And the strange thing is Corbyn embraces Capitalism and the looney lefties who support him do not.

  3. Political Tourist said,

    Is AWL saying building nukes is okay as long as the workers are in a trade union?
    Seriously?

    • Jim Denham said,

      This blog is not an AWL blog: this particular post is not by an AWL member: geddit?

  4. Johnny Lewis said,

    Political Tourist asks: “Is AWL saying building nukes is okay as long as the workers are in a trade union? Seriously?”

    Firstly, just to confirm: I am not a member of the AWL (I have some sympathy with aspects of their politics, but they can speak for themselves).

    But I’m certainly not saying that. Rather, I’m making the point that a union is an economic organisation which represents its members interests. I was arguing it is wrong in principle to try and get a union to abandon that core function which is what the ‘scrap now’ resolutions proposed. That does not mean that whatever a union says or does is right.

    It is a different matter for a political party with governmental aspirations (of course the AWL does not nor is it a party – rather a small propaganda group) which has two choices. It could simply ignore the union’s position, or, as the Unite Executive Statement advocated, Labour and the unions must develop alternative work.

    I would suggest from both a trade union and a socialist standpoint this latter approach has merit beyond the moral argument of scrapping trident. To give one example: before one can actually undertake alternative work it needs to be determined what these workers are going to build, bringing the workers into the decision making process. I think the trade union argument for this approach is obvious and I would hope the socialist argument would be too.

    • Glasgow Working Class said,

      You should ignore PT he is a narrow back Scottish Nat si and has nothing in common with the working class, trade unionism or the class struggle.

  5. John Palmer said,

    Jim Denman is totally ill informed and consequently very misleading when he states that “CND was from the beginning led by Stalinists who advocated unilateral disarmament for Britain and for the West, but supported the “workers bomb” for Russia.” That was indeed the position of the CP – and also some demented ‘Trotskyist’ sects notably Gerry Healy’s Socialist Labour League (of which Sean Matgamna used to be a member). But the CP were certainly not supporters of CND in its early years let alone part of its leadership. The CP line (much like the Labour right wing today) was to support phased multi-lateral arms reductions (the so-called Rapacki Plan). The CP said nuclear unilateralism was “ultra -left” and CND was “an obstacle to building the peace movement.” The CP did not change this position for some years AFTER CND became a mass movement.

    • Jim Denham said,

      I am happy to stand corrected on the early history of CND, of which I was unaware. I thank John P for this information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: