Workers' Liberty

AWL PRE-CONFERENCE MEETING, SHEFFIELD, 15 APRIL 2007

ASSESSMENT AND ORIENTATION/ EDUCATION

Tom U: emphasised the importance of trade union work for AWL. Used example of recent NUT conference and the motion on united union action for public sector pay, strengthened by the work of our comrades. Examples of work of comrades on trade union bulletins, etc.
We can also make independent initiatives such as Feminist Fightback which grew out of our student work.
Difficulties exists, but we can organise among the more general left, for example the response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon led by Nottingham AWL.
Education: relates to Marx's view of praxis. Our thinking is applied; it orientates us to our work and the world. The obstacles to education: finding time for it, and the miseducation of the rest of the left. The anti-war movement is an example of that. We must look for ways to get our arguments across and be effective educators for the left and the class. Our aim is to increase the numbers of those able to act as educators.

Mike W: report on student work. Sofie was re-elected to NUS Executive. ENS is growing, but finding it hard to do things that used to be routine, because of the poor conditions inside NUS. Political culture is very low. What we do is distinctive, but circumstances limit our scope. We still need more basic focus on routines, stalls, paper sales.
We have attempted to get People and Planet to adopt No Sweat ideas as campaign priorities. The difficulty is getting them to focus on the working class.

Caroline: AWL regional day schools were good and should be restarted. There are fewer opportunities to pick up a political education "on the job" than in the past. That puts more focus on self-education. Use the possibility of interventions to prepare comrades, raise confidence, etc.
Also, we have missed opportunities around picket lines.

Pat L: "Contact work" is one of our problem areas. As a small organisation, we have limited resources; also, people are put off from making a commitment to life as a revolutionary. We can get people to come half way, into student, No Sweat, or women's work, but getting the final commitment is harder.
We also need to consider the needs of potential recruits, e.g. provision when paper sales or branch meetings are not accessible to them.

Mark C: There has been a change in the political culture on the left, a lack of opportunities for sharp political debate. We can try to substitute for that in our own meetings. But ultimately we have to be self-reflective and educate ourselves about the issues.
On picket lines, we need to be open to finding out rather than assume we have to know in advance. Among students, we need to develop a base in colleges.

Anna: ENS does try to open up politics to class issues and the wider society. We were able to get an Iranian trade union leader elected as honorary vice president of NUS. The shift to the right in NUS is very rapid. Increasingly FE students are excluded. We need to make further moves towards some formal left unity.

Pete: The key to contact work is confidence in our politics. We must get over the syndrome of never asking people to join.
One weakness is the state of anti-racist and anti-fascist work. The BNP demonstrates its strength in standing over 700 candidates, and the left reveals its weakness. Our role here is essential.

David K: We can talk to people and discuss politics. The transition to membership is more difficult. We have to link politics to organisation.

Alison: We need to fill out details of student work.

Sandra: How did I get interested and then make the transition to becoming active? Through public meetings - having a chance to develop politics. We have to create debate and improve culture, be more reflective.

Mike F: We've had success in the NHS campaign in Leeds on the basis of educating and orientating a wider left.

Tom U: From Cannon we must draw out the idea of pride in the organisation; canvassing the rest of the left to develop ourselves. All education is practical. Take the example of the US Trotskyists in their "dog days", still able to draw in exceptional talent.

LABOUR PARTY

Caroline: The first four points sum up the content. We support the McDonnell campaign - first large-scale alternative to Labour leadership since Benn and Heffer in 1988. But it doesn't alter our basic political assessment of the Labour Party. Our orientation: to break the labour movement from Blair and Brown, to aim for a workers' government. The CLPs are in poor condition, though all AWL members should hold individual LP membership if possible, and we should investigate CLPs and seek contacts; our main campaigning focus is in the trade unions (stuff like the railworkers' meeting on 5 May); and electoral challenges to Labour are still in order.
The McD campaign has had potential. Will have more, for a while, if he gets on the ballot paper, though it is quite likely he won't.
The campaign rather confirms that not much can be done through CLP structures. Lots of CLP and ward officers in Sheffield have been in touch to offer support to the McD campaign, but not much happening through the structures.
The McD campaign has exposed some things about the state of the left in the unions. E.g. in Unison, you have the problem of the impermeability of the Unison APF structure, but the left has been weak; in TGWU the Broad Left has not pushed support for McD on the Exec.
The SP don't like the McD campaign because it cuts across their CNWP. The SWP "warmly support" the McD campaign but haven't got involved e.g. in the McD committee in Sheffield. Aside from us, we have Permanent Revolution and Morning Star in the campaign in Sheffield.
We are against unions disaffiliating from Labour, not in the name of waiting for better times, but in the name of rallying unions to use the Labour structures for a vigorous fight.
In Sheffield we had a fair-sized public meeting with McD, and then a fair number of people, including some new or younger ones, expressing some interest in ongoing organisation. However, the committee meetings have dwindled as the weeks have gone on. We've discussed having the committee carry on as a Sheffield LRC.

David K: In Leeds I've attended Campaign Group meetings. As CG youth officer I set up a SYN meeting. It was OK. David Isaacson from CPGB/WW then posted a report. Owen Jones, co-chair of SYN, sent David Isaacson a letter saying he should not be involved with SYN because of CPGB/WW's links with Respect. Independent candidates? But what are the consequences for our work relating to LP?

Lesley: The ward I'm in (in Leeds) illustrates our problems: do we work with e.g. LP or AGS?

Pete: I was at a LP meeting this week having been commissioned to write a leaflet for a LP election campaign, despite the fact I'm barred from the Labour Party because I've stood as a candidate against them. I really hope that McD does get on the ballot. If not, that will play into the hands of the right wing who say that there is no alternative.

Bruce: The document restates our 1997 position ten years on. But you can agree with that on a general level and not know what to do tomorrow. E.g. I thought it wrong to run a candidate in the May elections because of the possible impact on our work in the McD campaign.
The document reiterates our general view that the Labour Party is a bourgeois workers' party. But does it have a working-class base? Blairism has destroyed the corps of "traditional Labour voters" a lot, especially among young people.
We support Labour by default in elections, but exactly how and why? What would we say on the doorstep?

Dan R: The basic outline is clear. But what do we say once the McD campaign is over? It will fizzle out. And it becomes increasingly unsustainable to talk about the possibility of the unions asserting themselves in the Labour Party structures.

Alison: A lot of union activists have been uninterested in the McD campaign. We need to hammer at the need for trade-union political self-assertion.
There is a little bit of potential in the Sheffield McD campaign. A local LRC would be useful.

Tom U: The basic thing is fighting for the unions to reassert themselves politically. I'd be wary of getting involved in regular CLP work. It's hard to think of any good reasons for voting Labour. There are some functioning CLPs still around, e.g. in Broxtowe, but in Nottingham itself the Labour Party has been reduced to little more than the councillors. In Brinsley we will be involved in campaigning for the Labour candidate against the BNP, but we shouldn't spend lots of time in LP legwork generally. Speaking at the NUT conference Mark Serwotka made much of the fact that PCS is not affiliated to the LP. NUT has now set up a political fund, but its uses have been limited by rule to anti-fascist activity. What we want is the unions to be affiliated and use their affiliations to push workers' interests against Blair and Brown.

Mark C: I've had more contact with the local LP; been invited to speak at some ward meetings. I come across a lot of ex-Militant members. They have stayed in the LP, but they don't know why, they have no sense of purpose. It's foolish to think the McD campaign is a return to the 1980s.

Mike F: We said vote Labour where and to the extent that it is the only vestige of working-class representation available. McD campaign: important for us is being able to get some systematic LRC fraction work going. Should prepare for possibility of a big fight over reducing the TU say in the Labour Party.

Mickey: What's the value of us being individual LP members? There's not much going on in the CLPs.

Martin: One, to take part in political activity in affiliated unions. Two, as an "insurance policy" because things may change. Socialist Appeal is wrong to say that the pendulum must inevitably swing back towards a lively LP; but it is possible that the CLPs may revive.
There is a structural problem: the unions are unwilling to fight, and in some cases have heavily bureaucratised their political structures. There's been little debate in the unions on their political action: some in the CWU, some in RMT, a bit in Unison around 2001, and that's about it. That's not because of us being idle; it's structural. But there's no alternative but to keep banging away. We can't create new unions at will.

Caroline: I haven't been to a LP meeting for years, but I will go to the next meeting which is debating the leadership issue. It's worthwhile me keeping my LP card.

"INSIDE ORGANISING"

Dan R: This is not about browbeating people into getting unpleasant jobs. It is about having a culture in the organisation where people see their choice of job as a political choice. You can't be very effective as a revolutionary if for 40-odd hours a week you can't do political work.
It doesn't mean everyone working on the Tube, either.
Why is the document necessary, when this is a long-standing policy? One, because we have more young people around us. Our student work is in much better condition. Two, because a lot of our work, round No Sweat and so on, is in a milieu where the "common sense" is that to change the world you get a job with an NGO. We want to re-educate those people towards seeing activity in the labour movement as the way to change the world.
Our union fractions need to have a closer relationship with our student fraction, e.g. get students to come to union conferences to help out (and also learn a bit about the unions).
You can't be as effective as a revolutionary working for Oxfam as you can working in a relatively well-organised and political sector of the working class. We don't want to engender a culture of martyrdom, but we do want our members to see how and where they spend their working time as a political choice.

Anna: What are the important areas? E.g. it's hard getting jobs in the NHS.

Dan: Any well-organised workplace is ok. Priorities: Tube and others.

Tom U: This is not about sending people to places where they'll be isolated, either. It's best going to unions where we have established fractions.

Pat: We should also discourage people from taking extra responsibilities and promotions at work which restrict their political activity. They should consult their AWL branches about that.

Mike F: That's right. I've actively sought demotion in order to free me to do more politically.

Sandra: We have to give people time and space to work things out for themselves.

Alison: When I left student life it didn't occur to me not to go into a job where I could do political work. That's because as a student I'd done strike support work and workplace bulletin work. We should get students involved in more of that work.

Caroline: The most important thing is having a discussion with people about what they do, including about things like promotions. Previously we tended not to bother discussing with people who didn't go into one of the targeted unions. We should also make sure people go into larger workplaces, not just into the right union.

Tim: I work in a charity job. I took the job when I was just coming into contact with the organisation. I like my job, and I'm torn between that and my political awareness. I find lots of contacts saying: "What's your job got to do with your politics?". They're wrong, but we need to discuss carefully with them.

Mark C: A friend of mine was one of the founders of People and Planet. She went to a reunion recently with people who were with her in founding People and Planet. Now they're working for UN, World Bank, in very well-paid jobs. They have no links with working-class people.

Pete R: I worked in the steel industry for 20 years after leaving university. It's a proud political memory. It's harder to convince people these days that the unions are an arena for important struggles. We have to convince them.

Dan: Not everyone who gets an NGO job will end up working for the World Bank. But there is a big pull towards NGO-ism among student lefties. "Who are they to tell you what to do?" I had a big argument with other comrades when they wanted me to stand for NUS Executive. But we should not think of the organisation as "they". It's about collective discussion, a collective culture.

FEMINISM

Alison: The brief motion is to acknowledge the work we've done in the last year and to resolve to build on it. The Feminist Fightback conference was very encouraging. So far our feminist work has mostly been based on our student work; we should broaden it.

Dan: Yes, the feminist work has been based on our student work. There must be some scope for us to do more in the unions.

Mike F: In Unison there is a big issue around equal pay. The unions have done a huge historic sell-out. There are basic class issues to be raised here.

Pat: Women's Fightback should have more historical articles. In the 1970s our emphasis was on enabling women to get into waged work. Now the issue is more women being forced into waged work.

Bruce: In the 1970s we used to argue that it was a good thing for women to be drawn, even pushed, into waged work.

Pat: Yes, that's still true, in general. But we're not in favour of a punitive benefits system forcing women out into waged work.

Mark C: Feminist Fightback is a very good and timely initiative. There are a lot of feminist conferences happening these days, very well attended.

Anna: My experience at university is that feminist activity is very centred around lads' mags. It's understandable, but very limited, and can be reactionary.

Martin: There's a generational shift here. We have a generation of young women who have grown up in conditions where (for the first time in history) women have more or less legal equality; the majority in the trade unions are women; the majority of university students in many countries are women; school girls are on average more articulate and confident than boys. So we see a majority of young women in "anti-capitalist" ferment. We need to catch up.

Sandra: What about the young women in the Asian communities who are not at all in the same position as the young white women who enjoy extensive equal rights?

Alison: We still get a bias in our organisation that women speak on organisational issues and men speak on ideological issues.

Dan: A lot of student radicals can't understand what working-class socialist feminism means. But what is our model today of what a working-class-based women's movement would look like? Not like Women Against Pit Closures.

Bruce: On a world scale, there is a lot of women's right activity on basic issues.

Pat: Young women more articulate and confident? That may be mainly white middle-class.

IRAQ

Pete: On this we are in very sharp disagreement with the rest of the left.
The consequences of the invasion have been horrific. The response of the SWP-type left? It's like a child putting its fingers in its ears and screaming.
The document gives a narrative and analyses the "resistance". I remember a debate I had around 2003 with an SWPer, John Game. He said that the invasion would lead to big demonstrations, then armed national liberation struggle. Now they pretend that's what's actually happened.
The militias are sectarian. Some of the Sunni militia activity may have been prepared by the Ba'thists before 2003. In any case, the Sunni militias are all sectarian.
The Shia militias permeate the army and the police force.
This is not a national liberation, a people's resistance.
What do we say? We do not sanitise the occupation. The US neo-cons had the crudest, most naïve bourgeois-triumphalist perspectives. The occupation will not do anything to help Iraqi workers.
But we should also confront those who tell lies about the "resistance".
What about the slogans "troops out" or "troops out now"? There is a growing popular awareness that the occupation "isn't working". It seems simple to seize on that by shouting "troops out now". Simple, but simplistic. There is no simple slogan that can achieve what we want in Iraq.
In 1917 Lenin argued for "patiently explaining". That's what we need to do today.
Some people say: "now, the Iraqi people do want troops out now". Well, there is a lot of hostility in Iraq to the troops. You get people saying "it was better under Saddam". They'd rather have a new tyranny than continued chaos. How do we respond? Argue to fight to maintain the labour movement and democratic rights. There is after all a large non-sectarian element in the Iraqi population.

Dan: The argument that we have no possibility of an immediate answer, therefore we don't call for Troops Out, is flawed. In all sorts of situations, there is not much we can do practically. But we still raise slogans.
The majority of the Iraqi people identify the occupying forces as the source of the chaos. We can't respond by just saying: keep your heads down, stay out of trouble.
I think solidarity with Iraqi workers should remain our main slogan. But we should add a dimension to our propaganda which says we look to the labour movement as the agency to precipitate the withdrawal of the troops, we call for the arming of the workers, etc.
The question of the presence of troops is not just an internal conflict in the US ruling class; it's a real concern for people in Iraq.

Bruce: Much of the document is OK. The issue is not really whether or not we have a slogan "troops out now".
The majority have argued that the occupation is all that stands between Iraq and all-out civil war; and that might continue for a long time. But that is contradicted by what has happened. The continuation of the occupation has led to simmering civil war already. Could things get worse if the occupation ended? Possibly. But we're making a calculation from a distance based on scenarios. That is wrong.
Then the document argues that we can describe what is going on, but we can't say anything more, because we have no immediate answer. But what do we say if the US decides to go? What do we say to people who want the US to get out?

David: Motion seems to see the labour movement in Iraq as a passive force; all there is to be done is defend it. And to pose the occupation as counterposed to the sectarian militias, whereas in fact the occupation has close relations with some of the sectarian militias, and the government forces are honeycombed with Shia sectarian militias. What can we do? Build solidarity with the secular workers' movement. But that movement must be opposed both to the sectarian militias and to the occupation. At present we seem to be saying: "end the occupation, but not now".

Martin: Look back at Iran. We said "down with Shah" (immediate answer) plus "Not an Islamic state but workers' rule" (longer-term perspective). That was rational in terms of our assessment, which was that the Shah's overthrow would lead at worst to some sort of bourgeois democracy, even if with strong clerical influence. Our assessment was wrong. Khomeiny was worse than the Shah. What should we have proposed? Something like solidarity with the workers, women, democratic rights, against both the Shah and the mullahs.
We should not have had "Down with the Shah". Not because we wanted the Shah to remain in power, but because an apparent "immediate answer" slogan like that misrepresents reality and inevitably overshadows the "long-perspective" slogans. We wouldn't have had "down with the Shah"
Over Iraq: people rationally raise "End the occupation" as a slogan if they are mainly concerned not to have "our boys and girls" killed, and don't care what happens in Iraq; or if they think that the "resistance" is not really sectarian or Islamist, etc. It would be wrong to have an "immediate answer" slogan which is in line with those assessments and "save our conscience" by private interpretations. It is indisputable that the triumph/ civil war of the sectarian militias in Iraq would be even worse than Khomeiny in Iran.
Having "troops out now" or whatever as a separate slogan is like having "crush the sectarian militias" as a separate slogan (saving our consciences by having small-print explanations that we mean by the labour movement, not by the US).

Tom U: There is no magic way to improvement in Iraq. In the Discussion Bulletin, I quoted Lukacs saying that he came to socialist politics by concluding that both of the bourgeois variants would be bad. In World War 2 the "other Trotskyists" did not side with the USSR against the Nazis. That did not mean that they supported or condoned the Nazi invasion of the USSR. A lot of the SWP when they discuss Iraq are concerned only with seizing opportunities in British politics; they aren't concerned with Iraq. We don't always have to pick sides. Our politics do not have to be reduced to pithy slogans.

Mike W: We're not just about picking sides. But we have to have something to say about the national question in an occupied country. "End the occupation" is not intended as a quick, easy answer.

Bruce: No-one is suggesting that we de-emphasise solidarity with the workers' movement. It's in the nature of slogans that they can be interpreted in different ways. E.g. Tax the rich.
Is the occupation preventing things getting worse? No.

Dan: We're not just saying add a slogan, or de-emphasise solidarity with the workers. Our politics are not about scenario-mongering. The Iraqi labour movement is not a passive force.

Pete: It's not clear to me what Dan and Bruce are arguing for. Of course the Iraqi labour movement is not a passive force and we don't want it to be.
What do we say if the Americans decide to leave? It's stated in the document. We don't call on them to stay; we appeal for solidarity with the Iraqi labour movement which will then face a horrendous onslaught from the sectarian militias.

ENVIRONMENT

Bruce introduced briefly on the environment commission discussion. Around us there are ideas like stopping international trade; dealing with carbon emissions by "pricing them out". We need to work out a positive socialist response.