Permanent Revolution

Mark P on Tue 17, February 2009 @ 00:29

Mark P — 2009-02-17 00:29:09

An interesting report.

Congratulations to Workers Power for successfully convincing the Spartacist League of their position. Next stop the world!

Gerry Downing on Tue 17, February 2009 @ 11:26

Gerry Downing — 2009-02-17 11:26:18

Difficult, however to square support for the strike with the report in last night's Standard that a Latvian worker on the Olympic site had been counted as a 'local' whereas he clearly was not 'British'. ‘Local’ is another word for ‘British’ and Newham council has become the champion of the ‘British’, demanding the names and addresses of those who worked on the site so they could ascertain their ‘Britishness’ against the electoral register. You have now presented an open field to the right wing media, in alliance with Brown, the Unite and GMB leadership and ably assisted by the SP and their hangers on, to witch-hunt all 'non-British' workers. You have assisted to provide the class enemy with a stick to beat the entire labour movement. The strike started about Bj4Bw, it was spread on that basis and its conclusion was negotiated on that basis - how many jobs did 'the British' get? 102? Not enough and we have a job to do now on all the other sites in the country as the recession deepens to ensure 'our lads' are treated 'fairly'. It is too late now to begin to distance yourselves from the Unite/GMB leadership, what secret sellout were they negotiating behind the backs of the strikers, only 50 ‘British’ jobs, maybe? They will have the full assistance of the entire right wing media in this loathsome quest which you cannot now credible disown.

Phil Pope on Tue 17, February 2009 @ 14:37

Phil Pope — 2009-02-17 14:37:48

Gerry, the alternative of socialists not supporting this campaign would have been to hand the right wing an open field to attack all unionised workplaces and replace them with non-unionised foreign contractors. Socialist internationalism does not require support for capitalist globalisation. If you follow the policy of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' you will end up with politics as confused and disjointed as those of the right. Frankly jobs should go to local people - to do otherwise damages the environment, damages communities, and damages the union movement.

bill j on Tue 17, February 2009 @ 18:26

bill j — 2009-02-17 18:26:17

I read the Evening Standard article too, what it demonstrates is that local jobs for local workers is not synonymous with British jobs for British workers, for as Gerry points out, there are plenty of foreign workers classed as locals.

The issue was anyway how to fight nationalism and the slogan BJ4BW, you could either abstain from the class struggle as Gerry and Workers Power did, or you could attempt to win workers away from that slogan through fighting alongside them.

Funnily enough at that meeting the speaker from Workers Power, Dave S, praised the Socialist Party for the work they had done in this regard, while continuing to castigate them for leading the dispute. But the point is that unless the SP had lead they dispute they could not have effectively fought nationalism. They would have been reduced to frankly idle commentary.

The fact that WP forgot to include their opposition to the strike in their leaflet to strikers, seems to have passed Gerry by.

Charlie Marks on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 04:47

Charlie Marks — 2009-02-18 04:47:26

"You have assisted to provide the class enemy with a stick to beat the entire labour movement."

Wouldn't the ruling class love it if socialists were too scared to engage in disputes like this, Gerry?

The comrades from the Socialist Party are to be congratulated for their intervention in the dispute which helped get a focus on EU laws on posted workers, etc. (The comrades from the SWP didn't have members involved in the dispute and so were more tuned into the reports coming from the mainstream media - which is why their response was at first critical.)

JO on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 05:42

JO — 2009-02-18 05:42:44

Seems to be you all have your own agenda's - and they're all political. None of you really give a damn about the men themselves who, for the most part, aren't 'political' at all. They just want their jobs back. They've got bills to pay.

Fact is, if the strike wasn't an expression of 'xenophobia' a fortnight ago, then it will be if something isn't done to protect the British workeforce pdq. Of the 3 million new jobs created since Labour came to power in 1997, nine out of then have gone to non-British workers.

This is simply simply unsustainable. Whatever warped dreams you harbour for World Socilaism, it just ain't going to happen. When jobs and livelihoods are on the line, people will always protect their own. And thats not politics, it's human nature.

Gerry Downing on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 11:52

Gerry Downing — 2009-02-18 11:52:09

Congratulations Comrades,

You all know what the dispute was about and JO knows that you know and cannot be bothered with all that 'we intervened to turn the dispute away from the BNP' and all that. You and your co thinkers turned the dispute towards the right wing media and the BNP. It is not being scared to intervene. You only managed to convince the strikers that they were right on Bj4Bw because the strike committee refused to put repudiation of it to the mass meetings because they knew they would have lost. This observation caused Bob Archer to charge me with not understanding Gerry’s dialects, and wanting a defeat, as if avoiding the truth would make it go away. It has not gone away, it has only strengthened so that the Standard and the rest now have convinced workers like JO that Bj4Bw is correct and you are his allies in this and I am his opponent. At the NSSN SC Bill Mullins objected when the SWP proposed a formulation to repudiate Bj4Bw openly, saying 'you want another bite of the cherry' - he had got through a motion written before the strikes which he was taking as endorsing this 'victory'. And 'victory' it is for the right reactionaries, as JO so charmingly puts it if 'something isn't done to protect the British workforce pdq'. This 'victory' will destroy the entire labour movement in Britain if it is not opposed, the Standard knows whose victory it is, even using the SP wording to complain that 'local' did not mean 'British’ in this case, but it will if Labour controlled Newham has their way. And what will we say to the Italian and Spanish TUC who have so vociferously condemned you for your chauvinism. They are victims of media propaganda, they do not understand what the issues are. They understand you fine and so do I.

Gerry

Dan on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 13:46

Dan — 2009-02-18 13:46:17

Gerry you seem to love writing melodramatic statements, do you really speak to people like this in real life? Do you refer to yourself in the third person?! I know the politics are the important thing but don't you realise that if you express yourself like this then no-one will listen to you? It just comes across as a rant.

PR doesn't share the same position as the SP on the disputes so you shouldn't keep trying to carry out a lazy analysis.

Obviously the slogan BJFBW is a big problem and we have to try and find the correct tactics to change this. I don't think just denouncing the strikes will do this. If it is why hasn't that tactic worked? It seems to me that with all the flaws of the SP they managed to pull some sections of the workforce away from nationalism. Where is the evidence that what you are doing, what WP is doing or even what the SWP is doing is making any difference on the ground? You can jump and shout all you like but unless you can come up with tactics that will actually work on the ground then what you are doing is no more than hot air.

Dan on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 14:16

Dan — 2009-02-18 14:16:53

Stuart I think your report should have been more critical about the Socialist Party. The resolution they put to the Lambeth Branch Committee was far too soft on the BJFBWs slogan and in general I think they haven't done enough to bring up the importance of internationalism and have soft peddled on the issue of nationalism.

The strike was hardly a resounding victory given that no extra jobs were created and that effectively 100 jobs were given to people on the basis of BJFBW. Indeed the three points that AMICUS settled the dispute on were a far cry from the 6 or 7 demands that the SP got passed at the strike committee and Derek Simpsom has showed this in his disgusting behaviour since. While I think WPs tactics and stance would only isolate the left I think we can't hide away from the fact that any victory that came out of the dispute was partial. It certainly didn't undercut the nationalist aspects in its final settlement, despite the flux that existed in the dispute.

I also think it is partly understandable that the SWP are in flux about the dispute because the the facts on the grounds are hard to come by and seem to keep changing.

Indeed I think it's fair to say that PR haven't been definitive on our position.

bill j on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 17:13

bill j — 2009-02-18 17:13:22

What I think Dan's missing is the issue of union or non-union working.

This dispute was set up to be conducted on national not class lines. The sub-contracts were bid for by national firms - Shaw a unionised firm, for the British - IREM a non-union firm, for the Italians. It is not surprising therefore that some workers reacted on national lines.

As did many of the left.

Workers Power for example said it was inappropriate for the British trade union members to strike against the Italian IREM - this was the wrong target according to WP - as their dispute was with the British Shaws. WP followed the logic of the sub-contracting bid process and insisted that British workers could only strike against British bosses, not Italian ones, as to do otherwise was "nationalist".

WP abandonded internationalism or even trade unionist politics and embraced inverted nationalism - Italian jobs for Italian workers. Of course they avoided the fact that as Shaws had already lost the contract and already made their work force redundant, rendering a strike impossible. But this wasn't a problem for WP, they had no intention of intervening into the dispute in the first place.

They further complicated matters by insisting that they would have respected Shaws picket lines - in other words supporting the strike - while claiming they were against it. Their courageous stand was confirmed when they dropped their opposition to the strike in their publicity to the strikers.

As I've already pointed out Dave Stocking congratulated the SP for their intervention against nationalism at the meeting - confirming Stuart's description of the meeting - while remembering that as he was speaking to the left it was safe to say he was against the strike.

This is total cobblers and utter confusion as is clear to anyone but them, and Gerry Downing.

I also think we should have a bit of humility, unlike any of us (well most of us including me) Keith Gibson was there, and he did fight nationalism and racism. He did get the BNP kicked off the picket lines. He did get a reactionary demo against the Italian workers dispersed. He did put out union propaganda in Italian to those workers.

In other words before we get so judgemental let's remember who acted and who just talked about acting.

The final settlement was not on the basis of BJ4BW, it was on the basis of trade union workers winning non-union jobs. There is an argument to say that no non union jobs should have been allowed on the job and that if IREM insisted on this condition then they should have not been allowed to employ any of those original Italian non-union workers.

But in fact in order to be sensitive to the issue of nationalism Keith did not follow this line, but ensured that the Italian workers kept their jobs so they could fight alongside them to win them to the union.

Gerry Downing on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 17:24

Gerry Downing — 2009-02-18 17:24:16

Are there two Dans who are equally certain of opposite things? Or is there one Dan who changed his mind within a half and hour? And why must we hero worship the SP because they were 'on the ground'? The fact is that in this case we can only fight out politically what is the meaning of Bj4Bw on the left and aim out fire at them as defenders of the reactionary leadership of the Labour and TU bureaucracy. An outright rejection of that reactionary slogan would have projected a different character on the dispute, in the end Keith Gibson was afraid to put rejection to the mass meetings in case he found out the truth and was forced to repudiate the strikes. Best to pretend that he had convinced them and yield to Simpson and then watch the unfolding horror. Or was it?

bill j on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 17:31

bill j — 2009-02-18 17:31:46

That's certainly true, it was important to fight BJ4BW, and the abandoning of that by the strike was a big step forward. You seem unaware - even Dave Stocking has clocked this - that the strike's character changed over the course of the week, under the impact of socialist arguments against nationalism.

But given that you rejected any intervention into the dispute - it was character was already determined according to you - it would have been impossible for you to win anything out of it now wouldn't it?

What it boils down to is, do you want to fight or do you want to talk about fighting? WP and yourself abstained from the fight. There is nothing left wing or radical about that. You did not combat the reactionary slogan, or would not have done if you had been there, as you wouldn't have been there. You would have been telling the workers to go back to work, that this is the wrong target. British trade unionists cannot struggle against Italian bosses. That's for the Italian workers to do.

Mick Hall on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 18:00

Mick Hall — 2009-02-18 18:00:19

Gerry,

You were the victim of the media, you believed the worst of these workers and came close to scabbing on them. You bad mouthed these workers when they were involved in a justifiable strike. OK, no one is perfect, we all make mistakes, but instead of continuing to throw rocks about, you and a good few others who got this wrong, might try a period of quiet reflection. Or is that to much to ask.

Dan on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 19:51

Dan — 2009-02-18 19:51:17

Gerry how am I "equally certain of opposite things". Also I think we are all grappling with the facts and I have no problem saying this rather than some, like yourself, who seem to have a fetish for melodramatic statements and grandstanding. Gerry you still haven't said how you, WP or the SWP have influenced anything on the ground, despite having the opportunity to do so. A strategy and tactics which can influence nothing are not much use. One step forward for the working class being worth 1000 programmes and all that. You talk about "aiming out your fire" but in reality all this means is posting on web boards.

Bill good post, and some more food for thought!

Gerry Downing on Wed 18, February 2009 @ 20:13

Gerry Downing — 2009-02-18 20:13:52

I am not the victim of the media. If you look at today's Express and Mail you will be in no doubt whose 'victory' the Lindley dispute was and where it is now leading. It is you and your 'British' class consciousness who has failed to see that this is now becoming a desperate situation becauser of Brown, Simpsom, Woodley and the SP. The Bj4Bw was never repud8iated by the meetings, this was merely advice from Gibson, it was the basis oif the steelement and it is now to be the basis of all future settlements, defended by PR and supporters, who are openly advocating it here, even as you still try to pretend it was all about something else. The Spanish and Italian TUs know who won, you are too 'British' to recognise reaction when it is staring you in the face.

Dan on Thu 19, February 2009 @ 11:39

Dan — 2009-02-19 11:39:42

Gerry no-one in PR has said anything but that BJFBW is totally wrong. But heh, don't let that get in the way of things.

Yossi Schwartz ISL on Wed 25, February 2009 @ 14:52

Yossi Schwartz ISL — 2009-02-25 14:52:29

The Lindsey Refinery Strike and the Fight for Workers’ Unity in Europe and in the World

The European Union was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on November 1 1993. It was an attempt by the European imperialists to form a block against the working class and the other imperialist states. It controls almost 500 million people and 30% of the world’s GDP. This formation is another example of the historical law of uneven and combined development, in that the stronger capitalist states are in a position to super-exploit not only the working class of the third world, but the workers in the less developed European states as well.

The super-exploitation of immigrant workers from Italy and Portugal is the background of the agitation and unofficial strike at around 20 construction sites and refineries across Britain. According to a report on the Permanent Revolution groups website, Keith Gibson, a Socialist Party member from Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) and one of the leaders of the strike, reported that the strike broke out as a result of a contract being awarded to an Italian firm, IREM, and that redundancy notices were issued as the existing British workforce were to be replaced by contract workers from abroad employed by IREM. He added that the situation was made sharper due to a similar situation at Staythorpe Power Station, where the company Alstom refused to hire British labor, relying on non-union Polish and Spanish workers instead.

The shop stewards’ committee opposed the calls for a strike. When the workers voted for a strike, the entire shop stewards’ committee, on advice from Unite officials, resigned to keep the union away from the “unlawful” action. A vacuum was created, and as a result of this vacuum, workers started downloading posters from the “bearfacts” website calling for “British jobs for British workers," a line that echoes the position of the Labour government and benefits the fascist BNP.

Thus, there are two sides to this strike. On one hand, it is an action against the use of unorganized labor, and we support it as such. On the other hand, it raises nationalist slogans that divide and weaken the working class, and we oppose such slogans. Therefore, the ISL would advise British revolutionaries to support the strike, but criticize the nationalist slogans, often pushed by the labor bureaucracy to transform the proletarian struggle into a chauvinist one.

The left in Britain is divided over the issue of the strike. While some groups oppose the strike because of the nationalist slogans raised by the workers, others support the strike uncritically.

The largest far left group, the SWP, initially denounced the strike. On January 30, it was written on the Socialist Worker website that

We need a fightback, with strikes and protests, and the unions have been scandalously slow to offer any sort of resistance to the jobs massacre.

But these strikes are based around the wrong slogans and target the wrong people

It’s right to fight for jobs and against wage-cutting. It’s right to take on the poisonous system of sub-contracting that is used to make workers compete against each other.

It’s right to demand that everyone is paid the proper rate for the job and that there’s no undercutting of national agreements. And we need militant action, including unofficial action, to win these demands.

But these strikes are not doing that – whatever some of those involved believe.

The slogan accepted by many of the strikers is “British jobs for British workers”. That comes directly from Gordon Brown’s speech to the Labour Party conference in 2007. And it has been encouraged by many in the higher levels of the Unite union. Derek Simpson and others at the top of Unite have done nothing to encourage resistance to job losses, or a fightback against repossessions or against the anti-union laws. Instead they go along with a campaign that can divide workers.

But it lets the bosses off the hook and it threatens murderous division at a time when we need unity in action to fight back.

However, later on the SWP decided to support the strike, without any real change in the situation. This is a measure of the unserious attitude of the SWP towards the positions it takes, and its national-reformist adaptation to prevailing moods in the working class.

The League for the Fifth International denounced the strike as well. On February 18, they wrote on their website:

Of course it is no surprise that the voice of British Stalinism - the Morning Star - with its virulent Europhobia has been an enthusiastic supporter, talking of "the bosses' freedom to exploit as enshrined in EU law" (as if British law ever outlawed this) and that the EU "has effectively deprived British workers of the right to seek employment in their own country" (editorial 30 January). But for “Trotskyists” to join in this is really shameful. It is the product of the SP’s engrained opportunism, which as Engels said consists in the sacrifice of the fundamental interests of the working class in pursuit of short terms gains. The SP has glorified a shortsighted craft union objective (more jobs for UK or 'local' workers) whilst trying to camouflage its nationalist rationale as a fight for trade union rights.

The L5I refuses to support the strike, even critically, due to the nationalist slogans. On the other hand, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) supports the strike with no criticism of the nationalist slogan, as does the CWI.

The best line we know of was that of Permanent Revolution. They support the strike and at the same time oppose the nationalist slogans. They even correctly said that:

In opposition to the narrow "Little Britain" economic nationalism espoused by the Derek Simpson (and for that matter Tony Woodley) wing of the Unite bureaucracy and the regional leaderships of the GMB - not to mention the xenophobic and racist filth peddled by the BNP - the socialist left needs to be arguing against ever tighter immigration controls and in favour of forging links between trade unionists across the EU to push for the upward harmonisation of wages and conditions across the continent as a central element in a fight to end subcontracting generally alongside raft of demands for combating unemployment."

However, none of the groups on the British left raised the full answer to the economic crisis and to the need to unite the workers in Europe in the fight for a socialist revolution that will create the United Socialist States of Europe. They may call themselves Trotskyists but their politics are far removed from those of Trotsky, as expressed in a discussion article by him from 1923:

The question of Great Britain is far more conditional; it depends on the tempo at which her revolutionary development proceeds. Should the “Government of Workers and Peasants” triumph on the European mainland before British imperialism is overthrown – which is quite probable – then the European Federation of Workers and Peasants will of necessity be directed against British capitalism. And, naturally, the moment British capitalism is overthrown the British Isles will enter as a welcome member into the European Federation.

It might be asked: Why a European Federation and not a World Federation? But this manner of posing the question is much too abstract. Of course, the world economic and political development tends to gravitate toward a unified world economy, with its degree of centralisation dependent upon the existing technological level. But we are now concerned not with the future socialist economy of the world, but with finding a way out of the present European impasse. We have to offer a solution to the workers and peasants of torn and ruined Europe, quite independently of how the revolution develops in America, Australia, Asia or Africa. Looked at from this point of view, the slogan of “The United States of Europe” has its place on the same historical plane with the slogan “A Workers’, and Peasants’ Government”; it is a transitional slogan, indicating a way out, a prospect of salvation, and furnishing at the same time a revolutionary impulse for the future. (Is the Slogan “The United States of Europe” a Timely One?, First Five Years of the Communist International)

We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis of the capitalist system since WWII. It is no longer a crisis of mainly the third world, as it was from 1949 to the 1970s. It is no more mainly a crisis of stratified capitalism, as in the late 1980s. It is a world crisis, centered on Western imperialism.

It is clearly the epoch of the decay of the imperialist system, and as Lenin put it, it is an epoch of wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions.

In this period, the working class will learn the lessons of the struggles of its brothers and sisters worldwide. These lessons, with the intervention of the Marxist vanguard, will lead to the formation of vanguard parties and the re-creation of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution

Jason on Wed 25, February 2009 @ 21:22

Jason — 2009-02-25 21:22:59

An interesting article and a very interesting dsipute which I think is a serious test of how socialists orient to the workers' movement.

Whilst it is absolutely critical to oppose the reactionary narrow natioanlism of many of the strikers I think the best way to do that is to support the strike and argue for no job cuts, equal rights for all workers, all workers to be paid on trade union conditions and wages, for workers' control of the work and a massive investment in public works to ensure full employment.

Of course this also needs to be linked to the demands of workers' control of society- socialism- and a revolutionary struggle against capitalism but it is how Marxist militants intervene in real struggles, using them to win concrete demands and linking these to progressive politics- against all narrow sectionalism such as nationalism- which will determine how far we are successful.

An interesting debate, for sure, and I think the article here largely gets the tone right. This issue will return I am sure and there will be opportunities ot link migrant workers' struggles with the fight of rank and file trade unionists giving us concrete opportunites to show that workers' interests are thesame against the attempts of capital to drive a wedge between us.

vngelis on Mon 23, March 2009 @ 09:06

vngelis — 2009-03-23 09:06:52

ENGELS TO JULES GUESDE

IN PARIS

London, 20 November 1889,

122 Regent's Park Road, N. W.

Dear Citizen Guesde,

I have just had a letter from Mrs Aveling who asks me to write to you

if I should happen to have your address. Luckily it had been given me

by Bonnier and hence I am doing so without delay. The case is as

follows:

In Silvertown, a London suburb, Mrs Aveling is conducting a strike...

in Messrs Silver's works where rubber goods, etc., are produced. The

strike, in which three thousand working men and women are involved,

has been going on for ten weeks and has every prospect of success.

That it should succeed is important, for its failure would mean the

interruption of the long series of successes scored by the workers

since the dock strike, 4'9 and would spell victory for the English

employers whose rapidly dwindling confidence would thus be restored.

A few days ago, the Silver company received very urgent orders they

would not possibly he able to carry out with 3,000 out of their 3,500

work people on strike. Furthermore, there was an order for a

considerable quantity of submarine cables, which was to be shared out

between four factories, among them Silver's. They will miss their

chance, if the strike continues. They made tempting offers to some of

the strikers, but to no avail. They then played their last card.

Messrs Silver (a joint stock company which operates under that name)

owns a similar establishment at Beaumont-Persan near Paris, where

Frenchmen work under English foremen. Some of them were brought over

to England. It is known for certain that 70 working men and women from

Beaumont have arrived at the docks, but whether they have been

introduced into the Silvertown factory is not yet known. It is now

imperative that a stop be put to this. They were probably induced to

come over under false pretences, without having been told that it was

because of a strike.

Mrs Aveling at once telegraphed to Lafargue and Vaillant but, the

matter being urgent, we are also addressing ourselves to you, with the

request that you do everything in your power to prevent the French

workers from coming to replace the Silvertown strikers, and that you

make known the true situation, thus calling upon the class feeling of

your workers. It would be frightful were the strikers' resistance to

be broken by the arrival of a number of French Blacklegs. There would

be a revival of old national animosities and no means of suppressing

them. For the past four months the workers of London's East End have

not only given themselves to the movement body and soul; they have

also provided, for their comrades in all other countries, an example

of discipline, self-sacrifice, courage and perseverance equalled only

by the Parisians when under siege from the Prussians."' Just imagine

what the effect would be if now, in the midst of the struggle, they

were to find French workers fighting under the standard of the English

bourgeoisie! No, that is unthinkable! Only let the true situation be

known in France and it will, on the contrary, be thanks to the action

of the French proletariat that the English strikers will achieve

victory.

When, during the dock strike, we sent Anseele a telegram informing him

that the employers were bringing in Belgian workmen, he immediately

took the necessary action and his letters and telegrams went a long

way towards reviving the sometimes flagging spirits of the combatants.

If you feel able to offer similar encouragement to the people of

Silvertown, you should write direct to Mrs Aveling, 65 Chancery Lane,

London, W. C., which would create an excellent impression.

I hear from Bonnier that your health has greatly improved and that the

Marseilles campaign"' has strengthened your constitution instead of

weakening it. I am delighted, for we need every ounce of your energy.

It is good news that your slogan 'Neither Ferry nor Boulanger' should

have excluded the renegades and traitors of both these camps from the

Socialist Workers' Party552 in the Chamber.

With cordial and fraternal greetings,

F Engels

First published in: Marx and Engels,

Works, Second Russian Edition, Vol.

37, Moscow, 1965

Printed according to the original

Translated from the French

Published in English for the first time