Blog

Unite and Unison elections, and the LRC

Marie Lynam
3rd March 2010 at 19:19
4 comments

About the debate on the Trade Unions which we are having in the LRC, it seems to me that several conclusions are coming up.

One, is that those who propose disaffiliation from Labour (various organisations on the Left do this, Bob Crow and other T.Union leaders also) are still of the view that another centre can be built, alternative to Labour. But this is not what the majority of the Trade Union and Labour comrades say around me.

And for all the reasons outlined by many comrades, particularly in this electoral period, Labour is based on the Trade Unions - and historically speaking, this is decisive.
Besides, the onslaught of capitalism is coming at us like a tidal wave. It gives no time to start building alternatives.

That the Trade Unions have an entrenched, tenacious and treacherous bureaucracy makes the process of the transformation of the political centre (presently Labour) an anti-bureaucratic one, and hence an anti-capitalist one. It follows that the construction of the necessary Labour-Socialist political centre is an anti-capitalist process.
Today more than ever, this has revolutionary implications for Labour.

Two, it seems to me that, if the Labour vote was quasi-automatic in the past, this has stopped, and no mistake. Hence, the quasi-automatic Labour apparatus inner arrangements of the past have become automatic sources of retardment. For instance, the decision to support the Left in Unite and in Unison should have been settled many weeks ago, and the LRC should now be influencing in the Unions, without forcing anyone, giving its opinion - instead of having to explain to its membership who is taking the important decisions in the LRC. The old apparatus ways may give a sense of reassurance, but it is a false sense because new ways are required.

Three, the way I see it, is that the EC of the LRC yes, can and should take the important decisions. The present debate (about who to support in Unite and Unison) is very productive. The various interests involved call for a flexible and dialectical relationship between the EC and the LRC membership. The EC could make improvements here, to the benefit of the whole LRC: The EC could email circulars, proposals, declarations, proposed resolutions and suggestions to the membership (in constant but short flows). Short: On the militarisation of the so-called humanitarian aid in Haiti and Chile for instance. On the significance of Obama’s nuclear policy. On the Falklands. On the Kraft-Cadbury act of cannibalism. On AIDS as an intractable social problem in capitalism (and not just a pandemic). On the incapacity of capitalism to plan its own economy. On the Peoples Charter. On Greece and the speculation on the Euro. The need for really operating International Trade Union Centres. The PCS and RMT strikes. All the tax havens and non-dom scandals. On the need for an alternative Socialist/Anti-capitalist/Labour response. On the need to turn the LRC into a campaigning tool. Etc. This is a bag of ideas. I am sure these ideas find a big echo in the preoccupation of the LRC membership. The EC of the LRC could give short orientations and draw certain conclusions all the time, and not just when there is a particular concern. This would build a cultural fund of knowledge over time. It would incorporate better the left currents, and these would feel the pull of the centralisation of the LRC with Labour and the Unions, instead of being left out there, at a (often competitive) distance. Why wait until there are elections in the Unions before we, in the LRC, start discussing the role of the Trade Unions? The Lisbon Treaty is integrally part of this debate, but who discusses it? Where is the European Trade Union Centre? What does it do? Has anyone seen one single action on its part - apart from talks perhaps? What about the TUC? Why do we accept the way it works? Aren’t we those who pay the dues? Shouldn’t we be those who decide how it works? Am I wrong? Tell me! Is the present TUC structure an act of God, like the monarchy??

EC comrades could occasionally write to the LRC membership to say: ‘The NEC has discussed this and this matter, and I speak collectively to the membership in its name, to express such and such opinion of the EC’.

Four, the Socialist Party and many other workers parties exist precisely because the socialist job is not being done by the central organisms of the working class. Just the reverse indeed! And so, such workers parties should not be blamed for existing, or for trying to build themselves. Who else produces ideas? Old Labour? New Labour? The LRC accepts the truth of this since it gives the left a very good plaform indeed. Now, the LRC and its EC need to help the LRC membership mature the significance of this: Perhaps the Socialist Party does one thing or the other ‘to justify its existence’(as a comrade said). But if it does this, surely it is because it is looking for a path that advances to socialism. As it does not see clearly such a path, it seeks within itself the strength to keep going, against all the atrocious odds - and they are atrocious. Every kind of obstacle is in the way of comrades to incite them to give up the idea of socialism. Every inducement. The self-interest of comrades is being caressed by capitalism every minute of the day. If the Socialist Party comrades (and many others) do not give up, it is because socialism is right and they do not see why it should be abandoned.

Ah, but what I referred to in the above points requires a functioning at the core of the LRC organisation, particularly where decisions are made, with people prepared to act collectively and objectively. These comrades already exist, but they will find the path clearer and simpler when they decide to defend systematically a just aim, regardless of momentary reverses, or even losses.

And so the question boils down to: What is the aim of the LRC?

I suggest that its aim be to turn itself into a Labour/Socialist current.

If it does not adopt that aim, it will remain a Labour apparatus current, concerned with not endangering apparatus alliances that are - be sure of it - doomed to fail anyway.
comradely regards, Marie lynam

Comments 

Comment on this post

Log in to post a comment