The first letter below, published in March from a correspondent in Britain, drew a reply from the Communist Workers Organisation, whose political work was criticized in that letter. We print their reply followed by a response from our original correspondent.
For the LRP’s view on raising the demand for nationalization of a factory scheduled to be closed during the economic crisis, see our statement on the Republic Windows and Doors plant occupation in 2008.
The CWO is a left communist organisation who had set up a group in Durham. My activity with them lasted a couple of months until the practical implications of their politics, seeing the unions and the Labour Party as being the left wing of capital, forced me out of the organisation. What brought the sectarianism home was the case of an aluminum plant in Northumberland being closed with the loss of 3,000 jobs in the plant and with further job losses in the local community. I argued that the unions shoud be campaigning in the wider community to save the plant by getting the plant nationalised. I know nationalisation is not a step towards socialism, but at least it could be used to keep the plant open and the workforce together. The CWO would have none of it and argued that the unions should not be involved; rather a campaign by the workers outside of union influence should be pursued. Also the demand of calling for nationalisation of the plant was turned down as all it would be doing is to swap one capitalist employer with another; also we would be participating in keeping illusions in the capitalist state going. Seems to me that it’s difficult enough building a Marxist leadership within the working class without unnecessarily handicapping oneself by cutting oneself off from the working class.
On the issue of the unions and further strike action in defence of public sector pensions, I think that the actions or non-actions of the unions leadership involved is disgraceful. While it’s not a surprise that all the union leaderships involved favour negotiations, it still does weaken the resolve of the members when the union leaderships simply do nothing. It also goes to show the weakness of the left in Britain when leading organisations such as the SP either refuse to push for strike action or are unwilling from the start to point out that leaders such as Serwotka of the PCS will sell the struggle short. Should learn the lesson of the 1926 general strike in Britain when the left union leaders backed the right wing TUC leadership. One danger is that the Con-Dems will simply impose pension changes on the workforce which will lead to a period of demoralisation.
One recent surprise was Galloway’s success in the Bradford bye election with a Labour majority being overturned. No doubt some on the left will see this as a sign of a leftward move within the working class. I’m not too sure about this. Too early to say especially following the pension debacle. I think a clearer view will emerge after the upcoming local elections and whether the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition will win any seats or improve their vote.
D.T.
Britain
March 2012
Dear LRP,
We have been forwarded by our US comrade the letter you published from DT. We can confirm that after participating in our agitational work and writing for our paper we accepted him as candidate member of our organisation last August. However he began to experience “Trotskyist wobbles” (his words – he was a militant of the SWP here for decades) in early October. Apart from occasional one line emails in support of our activities we have had no contact with him since then. He finally sent a one line resignation stating that he did not feel able to be part of any group.
Imagine therefore our surprise when he informed you in some detail that the reason for leaving was a discussion about the closure of the Rio Tinto Alcan aluminium smelter at Lynemouth about 20 miles north of Newcastle. No such discussion took place and his account is a pure fantasy. Indeed the issue arose after he had ceased meaningful contact with us (in November 2011)
In fact there was no struggle to save the (550 not 3000) jobs at Lynemouth unless you count a local petition by the GMB trade union (the rest of the workers are mainly in Unite) which garnered 4000 signatures. It was therefore very difficult for revolutionaries to get involved on any level. DT’s “solution” of calling for nationalisation is equally fanciful. It was not put forward by any of the workers as far as we know and the unions did not base their campaign on that. In fact the unions engaged happily in the 90 day consultation required by law all the time telling the workforce that there was a good chance that an alternative buyer could come in. When this period concluded and the plant shut (the workers are due to lose their jobs by May) they cried “foul” but not about the closure of the plant. They were more worried that the concession of a final bonus payment to redundant workers was withdrawn.
In fact according to Rio Tinto Alcan the closure has come about because of the directives theabour Party leader Tony Blair signed up to with the European Union. Not realising the difference between electricity and energy he signed the UK up to making one quarter of all the emission reductions in the EU! The Lynemouth plant and associated has substantially reduced it carbon dioxide emissions but remains one of the top sources for them in the North East of England. The green budget of our Con-Dem coalition last March seems to have been the final straw for RTA. This budget speeds up the introduction of the targets. The unions hoped that the so-called emergency fund to help big greenhouse gas emitters would be used to save the plant. But as RTA calculate that a total of £210 million would be needed just for Lynemouth that would have wiped out most of the £250 million allocated to the whole of the UK!
In short the destruction of Lynemouth was the result of a state capitalist decision and, nationalised or not, the same problem would have occurred. However RTA are being economical with the truth as well (although we are still investigating this one). The merger of Rio Tinto and Alcan was only completed in 2008. They have already shut down a big Canadian plant at Saguenay (there is a reference to it is on the French language site of the ICT) simply by locking out the workers. RTA seemed intent on reducing capacity as well as raising profits (they are building a hugely cleaner plant in British Columbia).
As it was the unions have disarmed any possible fight back (which would have had to be much wider than DT’s suggested local one). The unions have simply followed the legal procedure (for which the management of RTA publicly thanked them). We have no problem seeing on which side of the class lines they stand as negotiating bodies. Our strategy is not to foist demands on workers (demands are integral to any struggle) but to encourage the workers to fight together, to fight autonomously (by setting up a directly elected strike committee controlled by mass meetings) and when the strike is over to maintain in existence groups of workers who politically understand the broader line of march. The first step in this is recognising why the unions (whatever their origins) are today functionally part of the capitalist management of the labour force. That is what we consider the basics of “Marxist leadership”.
Internationalist greetings,
Jock, for the CWO
April 2012
I should have been clear that any group discussions I had with the CWO terminated in November 2011 although they did carry on sporadically until about March of this year. The discussion with the CWO did not include group discussions over the Alcam plant, but it did include discussion with a CWO supporter regarding the necessity of nationalising the plant, and it came over quite clear that the CWO under no circumstances support a call to nationalise any plant.
The fact remains that the politics and interventions that the CWO carries out, or I should say lack of interventions, lacks any real awareness that the best way to fight against reformist leadership within the working class is by intervening within the unions as revolutionaries using a set of demands which can challenge the reformist union leaders and show that there is a political way forward which can develop a revolutionary leadership. The example I used of the Alcam aluminum plant does highlight the sterility of the CWO’s politics. After all they only argue on an abstract level that a struggle which does not involve the unions is the only way forward for the working class. This approach is politically useless in a situation where the unions are still working-class defensive organizations, however incompetently led. Instead of trying to undermine unions as workers organisations, revolutionaries should be attempting to develop a class leadership which will also be able to inject politics within the struggles and strikes.
The reference to my “Trotskyist wobble” arose the longer I was involved with the CWO and saw what in practice it meant to be an activist in the communist left. On the June 30 demonstration in Newcastle I felt it to be crazy to be approaching striking workers with the attitude that the organisation which has organised this strike is counterrevolutionary and is no better than the bosses. This struck me as being no better than the Stalinist approach of the early 1930's. I stand by my belief that left communism as a movement only offers sterility to those who become involved in any campaigns that they should instigate.
D.T.
April 2012