Commemorating
50 Years of Vanguard
In this issue we continue our occasional
series of reprints from across the 50 years of Vanguard’s publication.
These articles help trace the origin and development of the ideological
foundations of our Party.
More on
the Role of Trade Unions[1]
(Vanguard
Vol 5 No. 4 1968)
In the present period of sharpening class
struggle more and more workers are beginning to question the role of trade
unions in capitalist society.
Experience is revealing that the trade unions
actually restrict class struggle. The
trade unions have become a part of the establishment.
Their very acceptance by the capitalist class
means that they have been adapted to capitalism.
The capitalist class is very skilled at
hiding the real issues of class struggle.
For many years the class struggle has been channelled
into the parliamentary ballot box.
Parliament has been promoted as the centre of political struggle. If sufficient votes can be mustered for
candidates who allegedly represent the working masses, then social change will
be achieved.
This illusion is carefully fostered by the
capitalist class. It is the main way in
which the capitalist class gives “legitimacy” to exploitation.
It also gives “life” to the illusion of
democracy, that is things can be changed through “legal processes”.
The capitalist class must take this illusion right
down the line.
All the organisations of the people are
carefully dovetailed into the “legal processes” of society.
Trade unions are the biggest mass
organisations of the working people. They came into existence through struggle.
The trade union movement has traditions of struggle. All this is skilfully used by the capitalist
class. They say that the trade unions
fought for their existence and won out. Likewise they can fight for a change in
society; the struggle may be longer, but finally it will win, providing the
processes of the “law” are observed. The idea is “to take things gradually”.
The capitalist class speaks thus with its
tongue in its cheek for it knows full well that if the trade union movement can
be contained “within the processes of the law” then these great mass
organisations of the working class will remain harmless. They will not become a real challenge to the
capitalist system.
The capitalist class fears the trade
unions. It does not like any sort of
working class organisation. It knows that it is a difficult job to keep the
working class “within the processes of the law” when that law demands servile
obedience to ever-more intense exploitation.
Therefore the capitalist class pays much
attention to the trade unions. It sees
that it exercises control over them through the trade union bureaucracy.
This is the reality of today.
The capitalist class controls the trade union
movement through its state apparatus. It
has tied the trade unions to the arbitration system and thereby has skilfully
ensnared trade union officials in “the processes of the law”[2].
When workers in a factory or any other
workplace take direct action against the exploiters they are immediately bogged
down with trade union “procedures”.
Executives and trades and labor councils, and finally the ACTU executive
has to be consulted. There must be
“unity of action”. Inevitably compromise
solutions are reached. The recent postal
dispute over the employment of scabs is a good example. A compromise was worked out by the trade
union bureaucracy and the government.
And this will continue to be the case because
the trade union bureaucracy does not challenge the system of capitalism. It works out “adjustments”, “compromises”
WITHIN capitalism.
The trade unions have a leadership and a mass
membership. The leadership inevitably,
and must inevitably, become caught up with the “legal processes” of
capitalism. Therefore it stands in
contradiction to the membership.
The masses of trade unionists are all
important. It is here that revolutionary
work must be carried out. The objective conditions are maturing for such
revolutionary work. The workers know by
their own experience that negotiations with the boss, either through
arbitration tribunals or even directly, do not fundamentally solve their
problems.
It is impossible to solve the fundamental
problem of exploitation through the “processes” of capitalist law.
The reality in Australia today is that the
working people are being exploited more intensely. Large sections of the middle
classes are being forced closer and closer to the proletariat. This is the
fundamental reason for the expansion of the white collar union organisation and
the growing cooperation between the masses of white collar workers and the blue
collar workers.
This reality is an objective fact despite
years and years of negotiations.
There must be a change.
And that change is gradually coming about.
The Australian workers are very restive.
They are challenging old concepts. They are beginning to see through the
false cries of “unity”. This was demonstrated by the Tram Union membership vote
for disaffiliation from the Melbourne THC[3].
The hard reality of life overcomes habit and tradition
which is used falsely.
The working people of Australia want
revolutionary change. They want to put
an end to exploitation. They are
beginning to realise that they trade unions, important as they are, cannot
bring about a revolutionary change. This can only be brought about by the
millions of masses acting in the light of revolutionary theory.
Without a revolutionary theory there cannot
be a revolutionary movement. Once
revolutionary theory is grasped by the masses it becomes an invincible material
force.
The Communist Party of Australia
(Marxist-Leninist) is bringing revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, the thought of
Mao Tse-tung, to the Australian people. Trade union leaders can assist this
development. The masses of trade
unionists can be a mighty force in the revolutionary movement.
The lifting of the political consciousness of
the trade union members is the main task – not the winning of reforms, although
this must be done. The winning of
reforms can be used to heighten revolutionary class consciousness.
Let us place the emphasis on revolutionary
theory in the trade union movement. A
good practical step in this direction is to ensure the widest possible
circulation of the booklet, “Looking Backward: Looking Forward” by E. F. Hill[4], which deals with the
question of the struggle of revolutionary, socialist politics against trade
union and parliamentary politics.
[1]
For the newly formed CPA (M-L) the trade unions figured prominently in
discussions about how to break ideologically, politically and organisationally
from the revisionist policies and practices which had come to dominate the
former Communist Party of Australia (CPA).
Some “left” mistakes were inevitably made in the process of drawing a
clear line of demarcation between the CPA, where the capturing of union
leadership positions and adhering to the “processes of the law” were the
rule. Nevertheless, some of the earliest
publicly acknowledged leaders of the CPA (M-L) were themselves trade union
leaders – Paddy Malone and Norm Gallagher (Builders Laborers Federation), Ted
Bull (Waterside Workers Federation) and Clarrie O’Shea (Tramways Union). Over
the years, the question of the relationship between the trade unions and the
party of revolution continued to be a major focus of discussion within the CPA
(M-L).
[2]
Following the 1969 defeat of the penal powers of the Arbitration system, the
ruling class turned to other legislation not originally designed to restrain
unions –the Trade Practices Act for example – and then to new forms of
industrial relations legislation including Howard’s WorkChoices and the ALP’s
Fair Work Act to ensure the right to strike was restricted by “the processes of
the law”. It is a simple fact of life that trade unions by and large comply
with these “laws” and therefore contain any real possibility of a break-out of
mass working class struggle.
[3] In
all, 27 unions broke with the right wing leadership of the Melbourne Trades
Hall. The CPA (M-L) assessment of the “restiveness” of the workers helped Hill,
O’Shea and other Party leaders to decide that the time was ripe for a challenge
to the penal powers. In 1969 these 27 “rebel unions” decided to support O’Shea
if he was prosecuted for observing decisions by his members that fines imposed
on their union not be paid. By deciding to lift the level of struggle against
the penal powers, the Party led a movement away from opposition in words, but within
the “processes of the law,” which had been the position of the revisionists and
social democrats, to opposition in deeds that defied and challenged the “law”
and which were carried through to success by relying on the mass actions of the
working class.
No comments:
Post a Comment