Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[butchersapron]

I wonder if some union leaderships don't see success in terms of the size of their membership, and try to stifle some of the more radical elements so as not to put off less militant potential members.

But, if you see mass membership as watering down then it's irrelevant who is the leadership? It's just what unions do.

 

[Athos]

Absolutely not no.

Union members join because they want representation if they get a problem at work, and see it as an insurance policy if they joined because they were the most militant we would have nearly 6 million supporters of militancy out there.

You don't think that those in a union are more likely to show some level of militancy than those who have chosen not to be?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I wonder if some union leaderships don't see success in terms of the size of their membership, and try to stifle some of the more radical elements so as not to put off less militant potential members.

Yes of course that happens quite a lot - however that doesn't mean that union members are some vast untapped army of militants that would only back mass direct action or a general strike if radicals could only reach out to them.

 

[frogwoman]

Surely it's a good thing that more people are in unions (or if they're not, are organised in some way) though?

 

[Athos]

But, if you see mass memberships as watering down then it's irrelevant who is the leadership? It's just what unions do.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see mass membership as a problem in itself. Rather I see that making it the goal of union activity to be problematic.

 

[butchersapron]

You don't think that those in a union are more likely to show some level of militancy than those who have chosen not to be?

What are the union membership figures like in France? I think that you're building up what being in a union means a bit here.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

You don't think that those in a union are more likely to show some level of militancy than those who have chosen not to be?

In some cases yes - the RMT, teaching etc - however their combined membership is probably less than 20% of total union membership.

The rest however no and why should they?

 

[Athos]

Yes of course that happens quite a lot - however that doesn't mean that union members are some vast untapped army of militants that would only back mass direct action or a general strike if radicals could only reach out to them.

I agree. I made no such claim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just as a quick aside on that, and i know i always mention it, but it really is important - the 74-79 period, the one we are sold as seeing the turning of the working classes back on the unions, membership actually went up and went up quite steeply (iirc).

...and was grist to the mill of the likes of Joseph, Ridley and Neave. They were able to point to union power and say to Thatcher "do you want to be the next Ted Heath, humiliated by the unions? If not, you've got to break them".
Too many people, even those who should know better (given how many times the likes of us correct them on their poor understanding of recent political history), find it easier to believe the "sending the country to the dogs, dead lying unburied in the street, mortuaries full of rubbish" schtick the media inserted into the discourse back in '79.
Of course, a TUC membership dominated by a desire to support Labour, with heads of TUs feeling increasingly "entitled" as to political sinecures for doing so, has also meant that for many trades unions real struggle is difficult - the union heirarchies are more focused on suppressing internal dissent than they are on achieving anything for the general membership.

 

[Athos]

Surely it's a good thing that more people are in unions (or if they're not, are organised in some way) though?

Yes.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't get me wrong, I don't see mass membership as a problem in itself. Rather I see that making it the goal of union activity to be problematic.

That is the goal though. Monopoly of control of labour.

 

[Athos]

In some cases yes - the RMT, teaching etc - however their combined membership is probably less than 20% of total union membership.

The rest however no and why should they?

But is that minority status a product (at least in part) of the widening of the appeal of union membership which some unions have pursued at the expense of a commitment to militancy?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Surely it's a good thing that more people are in unions (or if they're not, are organised in some way) though?

Yep - people need to join or start unions and organise to establish good representation and negotiation frameworks which can demonstrate the effectiveness of workers sticking together and taking some control over their economic lives however small, the job of a trade union is not to bring about a revolutionary change in society.

 

[Athos]

That is the goal though. Monopoly of control of labour.

As a means to end, though; not as the end in itself, surely?

 

[frogwoman]

It seems to me that seeing mass membership as "watering down" the unions message is basically missing the point of what unions are about, unions aren't about starting a revolution but they are about achieving representation at work, they are not the be and end all of organising but you can't expect them to be made up of revolutionaries only. not sayinng you are but if they were only reserved for the "most militant" seems to me that most people would, rightly, pay no attention to them as it would be substitutionist bollocks

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have seen figures, can't find them now though that peak public disatisfaction with the trade unions coincided with peak membership, which I would lazily assume broadly indicated polarisation.

Look at the printed media of the era. I won't claim that you couldn't open a paper without finding an article demonising the unions, but it certainly felt that way - an ever-present onslaught aimed at convincing people that the unions were selfish, that they achieved nothing for the electorate as a whole, just for their own sectarian selves (obviously missing the entire point of being in a membership organisation. ) - because that was what those with power wanted represented. That it coincided with a leader of the Conservative party who held the working classes in complete contempt and would have sold her own orifices on a nightly basis if it had helped destroy the trades unions that were such a threat to her party was just the icing on the cake for power.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

But is that minority status a product (at least in part) of the widening of the appeal of union membership which some unions have pursued at the expense of a commitment to militancy?

No of course not, I'm not sure what you're getting at to be honest...

You seem to think unions or the union movement or even the bureacracies are a vast homogonous entity that acts in a coldly rational manner at all times and that they would achieve their goals better with either a mass passive membership or small militant membership??

 

[frogwoman]

And besides i think the fact that basically everyone i meet who is in unison is so pissed off with them (for example) is a reason why mass membership alone is not "watering it down" also some of the smaller professional unions have never been on strike and still havent

 

[ymu]

Really?

I dunno - I think it says lots of progress has been made, but loads still has to be made, and any progress that has been maintained has to be defended - the price of equality is eternal vigilance.

These sections are not comparable to top down multiculuralism or feminism or whatever as they were created and are led by the workers who self identified a need for them (and obviously bureaucrats but even they generally come from the same sections themselves).

Which is not to say of course that they don't buy into and reflect the problems of top down multiculturalism but that's because it is the only thing on offer.

I'm really not seeing anything different in that story from the one that gave us top-down multiculturalism.

 

[elbows]

Look at the printed media of the era. I won't claim that you couldn't open a paper without finding an article demonising the unions, but it certainly felt that way - an ever-present onslaught aimed at convincing people that the unions were selfish, that they achieved nothing for the electorate as a whole, just for their own sectarian selves (obviously missing the entire point of being in a membership organisation. ) - because that was what those with power wanted represented. That it coincided with a leader of the Conservative party who held the working classes in complete contempt and would have sold her own orifices on a nightly basis if it had helped destroy the trades unions that were such a threat to her party was just the icing on the cake for power.

My mum still rants loudly when this happens today, such as in recent years when the tv news started going on about Labour being subservient to unions, as if unions were a couple of rich blokes living secretly on a small island.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The more of a threat they became to capital, the more they were demonised.

The more threat they became to the (then) "new" perception of capitalism (neoliberalism), the more they were demonised. That's not to say that "social democracy" had reached an accommodation with trade unionism, but there was at least a tacit acknowledgement that the arguments of both sides of the labour equation had legitimacy. Neoliberalism preferred to have room to replace that with a Regency-era criminalising anti-unionism.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

My mum still rants loudly when this happens today, such as in recent years when the tv news started going on about Labour being subservient to unions, as if unions were a couple of rich blokes living secretly on a small island.

Labour is subservient to Tupac and Branson?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm really not seeing anything different in that story from the one that gave us top-down multiculturalism.

In what way?

 

[butchersapron]

As a means to end, though; not as the end in itself, surely?

What end? Revolution? No,that's not what unions do or are for. Wining better conditions within capitalism - yes.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

What end? Revolution? No,that's not what unions door are for. Wining better conditions within capitalism - yes.

exactly if there was a movement with 6 million members in this country which was committed to a workers revolution we would know about it.

 

[ymu]

In what way?

I thought it was fairly obvious from the link I gave:

Why did two communities that had fought side by side in 1985 fight against each other twenty years later? The answer lies largely in the policies introduced by Birmingham City Council after the original riots of 1985. The council borrowed the GLC blueprint to create a new political framework through which to reach out to minority communities. It created nine so-called ‘Umbrella Groups’, organizations based on ethnicity and faith, which were supposed to represent the needs of their particular communities and help the council develop policy and allocate resources. They included the African and Caribbean People’s Movement, the Bangladeshi Islamic Projects Consultative Committee, the Birmingham Chinese Society, the Council of Black-led Churches, the Hindu Council, the Irish Forum, the Vietnamese Association, the Pakistani Forum and the Sikh Council of Gurdwaras.

The unions appear to have done exactly the same thing. With the same dismal results.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I thought it was fairly obvious from the link I gave:



The unions appear to have done exactly the same thing. With the same dismal results.

Oh right so government creating ethnic/cultural umbrella bodies for their residents is the same as union members with specific interests coming together to create self organised groups and win rights to representation and establish their own structures is the same thing?

*I am in no way saying the unions don't buy in to much of top down multiculturalism given that it is all that is on offer

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I agree to some extent. But - putting it very crudely - surely the most militant are the most likely to already be in a union, such that the extension of membership to less militant workers has the effect of 'watering down' militancy?

No. Trade union membership is now largely centred in the public sector for historical reasons. It is almost dead in the private sector where leverage might actually exist (see RMT on trains/underground for an exception to the rule) and in the areas of lowest pay, highest incidence of insecurity - service sector jobs in guarding, cleaning, shop work etc - trade unionism is utterly irrelevant.

Joining a union largely depends on if one exists where you work.

 

[ymu]

Oh right so government creating ethnic/cultural umbrella bodies for their residents is the same as union members with specific interests coming together to create self organised groups and win rights to representation and establish their own structures is the same thing?

*I am in no way saying the unions don't buy in to much of top down multiculturalism given that it is all that is on offer

How is the union bureaucracy any different from government in this analogy?

I'm not talking about them buying into top-down multiculturalism. I am saying that their response to minority members getting a bit antsy (with the support of the majority membership) was to set up separate groups for them and keep them separate.

 

[Athos]

What end? Revolution? No,that's not what unions do or are for. Wining better conditions within capitalism - yes.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree that there is no role for unions in bringing about revolution. But, that aside, even insofar as their focus is winning concessions from capitalism, my point was that many unions' leaderships seem to have lost sight of that goal, and judge success on weight of numbers, rather than what those numbers can achieve. I'm all in favour of wider union membership, but because of the potential it has, not as an end in itself.