“The workers... battle-cry must be: 'The Permanent Revolution.'” — Marx and Engels, 1850

home | action | about us | sitemap | publications | recent | all | feed

US dockers: Striking a blow against imperialism’s wars

The dockworkers of the San Francisco Bay Area have a hard earned reputation for industrial militancy with a political edge that dates back to the city’s 1934 general strike. Over the ensuing decades dockers organised in Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) have embodied something of a working class vanguard, with members blocking shipments to Pinochet’s Chile in the 1970s, boycotting trade with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s and mounting solidarity action with the locked-out Liverpool dockers in the mid-1990s.

ILWU Local 10 again proved the driving force behind the most significant action to date by trade unionists in the western world against the ongoing wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. On May Day 2008 the ports of San Francisco and Oakland, along with virtually all of the 28 other dock facilities from San Diego, California to Seattle, Washington, came to a halt for an eight-hour shift in a dramatic protest by some 25,000 ILWU members to highlight their union’s demand for the withdrawal of US troops from both countries.

The push for the May Day action began in earnest when the Longshore Caucus of the ILWU voted 97 to 3 at a February meeting to support a resolution for a work stoppage explicitly opposing the wars and calling for immediate troop withdrawal. The employers’ umbrella body, the Pacific Maritime Association, sought to prevent the action and twice obtained arbitrator’s rulings that the May Day stoppage breached the collective bargaining agreement on time off to attend union meetings. While the union’s full-time officials got increasingly cold feet and issued statements that the action was really to support “our troops” and no longer had official backing, there was no order to abandon the action and thousands of dockers did not report for work.

The ILWU action struck a resonant chord across the Bay Area with a downtown movie theatre, the Grand Lake, featuring this stirring tribute on its marquee in the week leading up to May Day:

“We salute the longshoremen’s May Day strike to protest the criminal occupation of Iraq.”

A May Day parade and anti-war rally in San Francisco featured speeches from actor and activist Danny Glover, anti-war campaigner Cindy Sheehan and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, as well as local trade unionists. Meanwhile, a number of token work stoppages and moments of silence took place in other US workplaces, from ports in New Jersey to post offices in several states, to coincide with the ILWU action.

But the most dramatic effect of the West Coast dockers’ walkout may have been in Iraq itself, as dockworkers at two southern port facilities, Umm Qasr and Khor al-Zubair, stopped work for an hour, citing the ILWU action as their inspiration.

The General Union of Port Workers in Iraq wrote to the ILWU:

“The courageous decision you made to carry out a strike on May Day to protest against the war and occupation of Iraq advances our struggle against occupation to bring a better future for us and for the rest of the world as well.” In an interview with the US alternative news programme, Democracy Now!, ILWU Local 10 Executive Board member Jack Heyman said:

“This is the first work stoppage ever [in the US] where workers were withholding their labour and demanding an end to the war and the immediate withdrawal of the troops. Not only did we defy the arbitrator, but in a certain sense we defied our own union officials. The union officials did not want to have the actions we organised up and down the coast despite the arbitrator’s decision. Simply, we don’t take our orders from the arbitrator – we don’t take it from judges. The rank and file goes out and does what it has to do.”

Jack Heyman, along with three other ILWU representatives, will be in Britain in late June after receiving an invitation from the National Shop Stewards Network to attend its second conference.

Two of the ILWU members will be available to address union meetings between 25 and 30 June. Permanent Revolution is especially pleased and proud that ILWU reps will be part of our weekend of debate and discussion, joining the session on US labour and politics on Saturday 28 June.

George Binette

Sun 22, June 2008 @ 17:33

Bookmark with:

What are these?

discussion of this article

Wladek Flakin said…

As was to be expected, the Sparts have shown that this heroic action by the dockers was in fact just a maneuver to bolster support for the Democratic Party: http://spartacist.org/english/wv/916/ignote.html

Wed 25, June 2008 @ 15:14

Arthur Bough said…

This quopte from Trotsky shows why opposition to imperialism is important, and why even the kind of passivity in respect of imperilaism of the AWL cannot be accepted.

"If we are to do nothing to weaken the imperialist allies of the Soviet Union through the class struggle, that means naturally that we must strengthen the confidence of the people in their rule. What will we do then, when French, Belgian, Czechoslovakian militarism, buttressed by its own proletariat, turns, in the course of the war – a perfectly understandable and possible development – to direct their weapons against the Soviets? To delude ourselves with the idea that, in such a case, we can strongly oppose them, is madness. The great masses do not make such sharp turns. The power which we have helped militarism to gain, will not be so easily wished away. In such a case, we would have put ourselves into the position of being not only passive but active agents in the destruction of the Soviet Union."

In other words, if you simply wash your hands of fighting imperialism as the AWL propose then you say to workers by your lack of opposition "look Imperialsm can act progressively". IN so doing you mislead and miseducate the class, and it is no wonder then that the class will then believe tat imperialism should be free to intervene elsewhere, for example in Iran or Syria, or as in the example above to attack a Workers State.

The Stalinists used that method to defend the USSR, the AWL use it for the stated urpose of defending the tiny Iraqi working class, in doing so they put the working class as a whole in jeopardy from that same imperialism.

The action of the dockers shows the way forward as Dave Broder of the AWL Minority argued. He also showed in these posts why the AWL's posiiton on this in respect of Iraq contradicts the position they or at least Sean Matgamna took in relation to Ireland and the position of the IS.

See:http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/03/swp-and-british-troops-ireland-1969#comment-16217

and

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/03/swp-and-british-troops-ireland-1969#comment-16227

and

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/24/thoughts-working-class-internationalism#comment-16231

I have asked the AWL Majority to answer the quesion implicit in Dave's argument here in respect of the docker's action, but as is their wont they simply deleted my posts rather than reply. In response to that question by one of your comrades they replied with weasel words. Clive Bradely says of course they support strike action, but does not tell us how they reconcile that with the entire purpose of that strike action to be to bring about a situation they not only oppose, but believe to be reactionary because it would lead to the destruction of the Iraqi working class.

The question is when will the AWL Minority demand answers to these questions, when will they ask the question I asked, which is what happened to Dan Randall's proposal for the development of a programme to develop the Iraqi workingc lass so that it can assume the role the majority says it is in favour of i.e. to be able to be strong enough to defeat both the Occupation and the "Resistance"? When will the AWL Minority begin to ask questions about an organisation that proceeds on the basis of rudeness and disloyalty even against its fomer members by simply censoring and deleting their comments rather than engaging in serious debate over them?

Thu 26, June 2008 @ 17:24

Arthur Bough said…

I proposed the following questions for the AWL Majority to answer. They replied by deleting the post. Perhaps your comrades could ask the questions.

1) Were you a US docker how would you have voted? Would you have broken the strike? If not why not?

2) Do you REALLY believe that if the working class mobilises around a demand for the defeat of the Occupation, that the Occupation will immediately leave?

3) IF not then isn't your statement that a call fo such a mobilisation means IMMEDIATE Civil War, simply scaremongering and a diversion?

4) Martin says that the Occupation is driving towards the installation of a Bonaparte. Do you beleive this Bonaparte will also be conducive to the Labour Movement,or better or worse than your speculatons about Civil War?

5) Martin says the labour Movement should oppose these plans of imperialism, but that doesn't mean supporting the clerical-fascists. Agreed, at least politically. But how can you oppose the plans of imperialism WITHOUT calling for it to leave. You are left with a pathetic plea to imperialism toa ct how you want it to act, not how it is required to act. What possible reason do you have for believing that is possible? By what means do you propose to bring it about?

TRotsky wrote,

"Where and when has an oppressed proletariat “controlled” the foreign policy of the bourgeoisie and the activities of its arm? How can it achieve this when the entire power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? In order to lead the army, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize power. There is no other road. But the new policy of the Communist International implies the renunciation of this only road.

When a working class party proclaims that in the event of war it is prepared to “control” (i.e., to support) its national militarism and not to overthrow it, it transforms itself by this very thing into the domestic beast of capital. There is not the slightest ground for fearing such a party: it is not a revolutionary tiger but a trained donkey. It may be kept in starvation, flogged, spat upon it – it will nevertheless carry the cargo of patriotism. Perhaps only from time to time it will piteously bray: “For God’s sake, disarm the Fascist leagues.” In reply to its braying it will receive an additional blow of the whip. And deservingly so!" See: href=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/06/french.htm

6) The Majority say they are in favour of the Iraqi working-class defeating both imperialism and the "Resistance". Good. Dan Randall before the last AWL COnference proposed developing an Action Plan for Iraq. Again Good. Doesn't the majorities stated aim require such a Programme if it is to be achieved? Why 5 years into the US Colonial rule of Iraq has such a programme not been developed? What has happened to Dan's proposal?

The AWL has spent a lot of time trawling through the writings of bouyregois strategists and given us long journalistic accounts of what it beleives might happen. As Marx said our task is not to interpret history, but to change it. That requires a strategy for action. The AWL's speculations, however, have only providde the basis for a Programme of inaction. AS TRotsky put it, "We are for a strategy of action--not for speculation."

Thu 26, June 2008 @ 17:27

bill j said…

A slight quibble. Marx said "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

He didn't say that philosphers were wrong to intepret the world, but that this interpretation must lead to change. The AWL interpret the world - not in order to change it but to justify the occupation of Iraq by imperialism.

All the reams of virtual ink they expend doesn't change that fact.

Therefore if they were consistent (they're not but who cares?) they would oppose the strike as a reactionary blow against the occupation they support.

Thu 26, June 2008 @ 20:18

Arthur Bough said…

I think Marx was saying "Enough of the interpreting already, let's change things." I don't know that the AWL justify the Occupation as such, even if that is the consequecne of what they say, but that they do not in reality oppose it. They claim to want it to go by the hands of the workers, but fail to bring forward any kind of program or strategy by which the workingc lass could achieve that. As I said Dan Randall proposed developing such a Program, but as far as I can see its been killed.

Consequently, even in terms of the AWL's stated position that they oppose calls for the Occupation to leave tehy should as you say oppose any actual calls for action that would bring that about. They will not do that ebcause that would mean confronting workers here at home with the actual consequence of their politics. Logically, they should be as committed to scab on such a reactionary strike (in their terms) as they would in relation to a strike for say racist goals.

But, as I have pointed out elsewhere this is not the only incidence of this. They argue for instance in favour of defence of state capitalist property in the UK, for example the NHS, the Tube etc. Yet, half the AWL characterise the USSR and other Stalinist states as State Capitalist too, but they do not argue for defence of THAT state capitalist property. It is symptomatic of Opportunism.

Thu 26, June 2008 @ 22:43

jason said…

A great session. It shows how persistent, long-term pateint political work can build an important political strike which also had a direct effect in Iraq with dockworkers at two southern ports staging a walkout/work stoppage.

Sun 29, June 2008 @ 23:43

Wladek said…

The RSO from Austria translated this article and put in on their web site:

http://sozialismus.net/ue_texte/us-dockers-gegen-krieg.html

Tue 01, July 2008 @ 14:42

Arthur Bough said…

I have been following the contributions of comrades Jason and Bill on the AWL Discussion Board with interest on the question of Iraq. I note they still have not answered the question of what their position would have been over the Dockers vote and action. Of course, I would have liked to participate in that discussion, but the AWL now delete all of my posts there. As I have just e-mailed to one oft heir comrades it appears the AWL now know they have lost this argument, and can only now resort to Healyite gangsterism and Stalinist censorship in order to stymie the debate they so repeatedly say they welcome.

Of course they allow Jason and Bill to post because even the Minority oppose the positions of PR - indeed I oppose most of the formulation myself, but they know they can appeal to TRotskyist tribal loyalty over reasoned argument as their response. They no doubt welcome me positing here for that reason too now they have prevented me responding to them on their own Board. C'est la vie, the Stalinists used the same tactics when TRotsky was forced to respond to them in the bourgeois media.

Wed 02, July 2008 @ 21:47

Grace said…

http://michael-owen.cudiba.info http://wellington-2.gabimku.info http://mountain-hardware.epasir.info http://stevensville.doqagje.info http://class-62.ejisoj.info http://phones-11.eqexaky.info http://colleges-2.gupacef.info http://photos-35.eqexaky.info http://granite.emykab.info http://big-98.ejysali.info http://east-haddam.emewugi.info http://web-36.edoahfe.info http://monica-bellucci.epasir.info http://west-39.gabimku.info http://rosholt.ewufieh.info

http://eniyra.info

Wed 23, July 2008 @ 18:37

add to the discussion

   

your details (optional)

name
e-mail address
URL

Your e-mail address will not be shared.

your comment

Separate paragraphs with blank lines; HTML markup will be removed; URLs will be converted to links.