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

[Smokeandsteam]

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

Spot on. Unions are not, never have been and never will be potentially revolutionary organisations. Their purpose is normally defensive and always within a capitalist framework.

 

[butchersapron]

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.

You just said wider membership meant watered down militancy! And again, they haven't lost sight of that goal - it never was their goal. Their goal isn't to do themselves out of their role.

 

[Athos]

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

I agree. Clearly, you and Spanky (and maybe Butch) have missed the thrust of my point (which I guess must be more my fault than yours). I'm not against mass unionism; rather, I was being critical of the leadership of some unions who see memberships figures as the be all and end all.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

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

How are they the same?

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.

The bureaucracy did not generally just hand structures down to members - members who wanted them argued for them and votes were held among delegates at conferences in general over a period of several years...

They are not seperate from the rest of the union, generally members of regional women's or black committees have to be nominated from their branches, certainly in the big 3 unions.

 

[Athos]

You just said wider membership meant watered down militancy! And again, they haven't lost sight of that goal - it never was their goal. Their goal isn't to do themselves out of their role.

When I made the 'watered down' point, I did use the caveat that it was a crude way of putting it. But I suppose you're right about what unions' leaders' goals are; maybe I'm being a little idealist about what I think they ought to be!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I agree. Clearly, you and Spanky (and maybe Butch) have missed the thrust of my point (which I guess must be more my fault than yours). I'm not against mass unionism; rather, I was being critical of the leadership of some unions who see memberships figures as the be all and end all.

I haven't missed the thrust of argument, I think you have missed the thrust of ours.

Unions are there to provide a framework for workers to get independent representation for individual and collective issues and carry out collective bargaining over pay and conditions.

What political and campaigning work is carried out by them is in order to strenghten those core objectives through introducing legislation to support said objectives.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

When I made the 'watered down' point, I did use the caveat that it was a crude way of putting it. But I suppose you're right about what unions' leaders' goals are; maybe I'm being a little idealist about what I think they ought to be!

It's not just about the goals of their leaders though - it's also about the goals and aspirations of the members which is basically better conditions at work, and that is it and often very modest improvements to or defence of conditions.

 

[Athos]

I haven't missed the thrust of argument, I think you have missed the thrust of ours.

Unions are there to provide a framework for workers to get independent representation for individual and collective issues and carry out collective bargaining over pay and conditions.

What political and campaigning work is carried out by them is in order to strenghten those core objectives through introducing legislation to support said objectives.

Collective bargaining has two elements. Numbers, and a willingness to act. My point was that the leadership of some unions has focused disproportionately on the former, at the expense of undermining the latter. I continue to wonder whether the net effect isn't to weaken the unions' position.

 

[ymu]

How are they the same?

Did the union bureaucrats not have to allow it to happen?

The bureaucracy did not generally just hand structures down to members - members who wanted them argued for them and votes were held among delegates at conferences in general over a period of several years...

I'm sure there were plenty of 'community leaders' bending politicians ears too.

They are not seperate from the rest of the union, generally members of regional women's or black committees have to be nominated from their branches, certainly in the big 3 unions.

I didn't say they were in entirely separate unions. Top-down multiculturalism is aimed at British citizens.

You honestly can't see this analogy, or just don't want to?

 

[Athos]

It's not just about the goals of their leaders though - it's also about the goals and aspirations of the members which is basically better conditions at work, and that is it and often very modest improvements to or defence of conditions.

Yeah, fair enough - I agree with all that.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Collective bargaining has two elements. Numbers, and a willingness to act. My point was that the leadership of some unions has focused disproportionately on the former, at the expense of undermining the latter. I continue to wonder whether the net effect isn't to weaken the unions' position.

No collective bargaining has multiple elements that all add up to one thing from the point of view of the union - leverage.

Leverage is not just determined by density and organisation, but also (for both sides) by confidence, public support, organisational culture, balance of partnership, knowledge and information, resources etc.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The hovel

TBF that is minging, horrible carpet and curtain (not cutains, one curtain), the skirting board needs a wipe and I don't think much of the bedclothes either. If that was my bedroom, I'd be ashamed to show it to the internet.

Sash windows are always nice though - But the numpty's put fucking stickers on hers.

 

[Das Uberdog]

presumably the room's in central London too though so that has to be taken into consideration... probably costs a grand a week to rent

 

[Athos]

No collective bargaining has multiple elements that all add up to one thing from the point of view of the union - leverage.

Leverage is not just determined by density and organisation, but also (for both sides) by confidence, public support, organisational culture, balance of partnership, knowledge and information, resources etc.

Yes, I realise it's a multi-faceted thing, which is why I was at pains to stress that what I said was crude. But, I still feel my central point is sound, and that leverage depends (at least in part) on a willingness to act, and not just on numbers; and that union leaders seem to have missed that point.

I understand your point, but I disagree. And am happy to agree to do so.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Collective bargaining has two elements. Numbers, and a willingness to act.

I'm not certain the argument is quite so simple. For example the threat of limited action by a small group of train drivers can have far more impact than sustained action by a large number of, say, librarians. The balance of forces is made up of a number of factors of which numbers and a willingness to act are only part. Agreed that nothing is possible without the latter though.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Did the union bureaucrats not have to allow it to happen?

I'm sure there were plenty of 'community leaders' bending politicians ears too.

I didn't say they were in entirely separate unions. Top-down multiculturalism is aimed at British citizens.

You honestly can't see this analogy, or just don't want to?

1. To some extent.
2. Elected union reps and conference delegates are in no way comparable to self or government appointed community leaders and to compare them as such is a little bit offensive in my view.
3. I did not imply you did - you did however imply a degree of seperation which in my experience (at different levels in 4 different unions) is not present.

And if you're going to suggest I'm being dishonest just because I don't agree with you - you can fuck off, I thought you were better than that.

I am in no way defending the current set up - what I am saying is that it is not the same as government imposed multiculturalism it has it's own set of flaws and limitations which sometimes overlap with that (unsurprisingly), and it needs to be criticised on it's own terms - which is basically that it replicates all the other weaknesses of the union movement within a subsection of members.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm not certain the argument is quite so simple. For example the threat of limited action by a small group of train drivers can have far more impact than sustained action by a large number of, say, librarians. The balance of forces is made up of a number of factors of which numbers and a willingness to act are only part. Agreed that nothing is possible without the latter though.

This is it basically.

I have personal experience of a group of petrol tanker drivers who got pretty much whatever they asked for because they had a skilled job and couldn't be replaced easily and if they refused to drive would cause an oil refinary to get backed up and possibly have to be shut down which cannot be allowed to happen.

They were no more militant and certainly no more left wing than your average librarian but they had far more power in the workplace due to specific circumstances, politics simply did not come into it.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

presumably the room's in central London too though so that has to be taken into consideration... probably costs a grand a week to rent

Yeah, but she only lives there ironically...if she had her way, she'd follow her heart and squat in Middlesbrough...to be nearer to her supporters. She's forced into the belly of the beast by forces of patriarchy.

 

[Athos]

... For example the threat of limited action by a small group of train drivers can have far more impact than sustained action by a large number of, say, librarians...

I agree. And that's a big part of what I'm saying. I just wish that union leaders would recognise this more, rather than turn the unions into anodyne behemoths. But, as has been pointed out, the leaders are going to act in their own interests.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Given that she could buy a house in Middlesbrough for the amount it costs to rent for two weeks in Marylebone no need to to squat, she could buy a house and get a load of bright young things to move in and create a magazine/comic/website for free...

 

[ymu]

I'm not certain the argument is quite so simple. For example the threat of limited action by a small group of train drivers can have far more impact than sustained action by a large number of, say, librarians. The balance of forces is made up of a number of factors of which numbers and a willingness to act are only part. Agreed that nothing is possible without the latter though.

Well, yes. But what happens when the small group of railwaymen becomes a very large group of railwaymen? Are they just as likely to take strike action as the small group were?

I don't think Athos is saying anything more complicated than that it is difficult to attract a mass membership whilst remaining militant, because the masses are not very militant.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I agree. And that's a big part of what I'm saying. I just wish that union leaders would recognise this more, rather than turn the unions into anodyne behemoths. But, as has been pointed out, the leaders are going to act in their own interests.

I really don't get what you're saying here??

Generally those workers who can organise purely on the strenght of their control of the supply chain generally do, and those who have to take a different tack generally do...

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Well, yes. But what happens when the small group of railwaymen becomes a very large group of railwaymen? Are they just as likely to take strike action as the small group were?

I don't think Athos is saying anything more complicated than that it is difficult to attract a mass membership whilst remaining militant, because the masses are not very militant.

The railway workers are a large group already within their industry they have high density, the union is smaller because the workforce is smaller.

 

[Athos]

I really don't get what you're saying here??

Generally those workers who can organise purely on the strenght of their control of the supply chain generally do, and those who have to take a different tack generally do...

It's about a willingness to exercise control of the supply chain.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

As an aside the entire industrial strategy of the fake left union leaders, like Serwotka etc, has been based on 1 day set piece stoppages of their entire membership rather than sustained targeted action by smaller groups of their members who possess genuine leverage.

It's almost as if they don't want to win their disputes. Perhaps this is the point that Athos is making?

 

[ymu]

1. To some extent.
2. Elected union reps and conference delegates are in no way comparable to self or government appointed community leaders and to compare them as such is a little bit offensive in my view.
3. I did not imply you did - you did however imply a degree of seperation which in my experience (at different levels in 4 different unions) is not present.

And if you're going to suggest I'm being dishonest just because I don't agree with you - you can fuck off, I thought you were better than that.

I am in no way defending the current set up - what I am saying is that it is not the same as government imposed multiculturalism it has it's own set of flaws and limitations which sometimes overlap with that (unsurprisingly), and it needs to be criticised on it's own terms - which is basically that it replicates all the other weaknesses of the union movement within a subsection of members.

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, I'm just surprised that the analogy is not obvious.

Being obvious is not the same as being right. I'm quite prepared to accept that the way the unions do it promotes class unity. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. This kind of stuff suggests that it isn't, but hey, maybe this is the fastest progress possible and they have actually implemented a model that includes rather than marginalises.

 

[Athos]

Well, yes. But what happens when the small group of railwaymen becomes a very large group of railwaymen? Are they just as likely to take strike action as the small group were?

I don't think Athos is saying anything more complicated than that it is difficult to attract a mass membership whilst remaining militant, because the masses are not very militant.

That's part of what I'm saying.

 

[Athos]

As an aside the entire industrial strategy of the fake left union leaders, like Serwotka etc, has been based on 1 day set piece stoppages of their entire membership rather than sustained targeted action by smaller groups of their members who possess genuine leverage.

It's almost as if they don't want to win their disputes. Perhaps this is the point that Athos is making?

That's part of what I'm saying, too.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm not saying you're being dishonest, I'm just surprised that the analogy is not obvious.

Being obvious is not the same as being right. I'm quite prepared to accept that the way the unions do it promotes class unity. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true. This kind of stuff suggests that it isn't, but hey, maybe this is the fastest progress possible and they have actually implemented a model that includes rather than marginalises.

It's not obvious because it's two very different situations - which is basically that at least in the union movement however flawed it is about working class people with a particular self identified set of needs organising together to fight to change their own class organisations to take those needs into account rather than running off and uniting in cross class groups outwith the union movement

Obviously the process takes time and will win victories in one area and lag in another the stuff in the post you link to was quite a while ago now, and was actually one of the first victories in what has been a flawed national victory for women in the TU movement (despite all the problems with it which are all down to the inherent problems in the TU movement and not self organisation specifically).

nothing you have posted suggests my initial claim is wrong - that progress has been made but a lot still needs to be done, or that the structures of the TU movement are inadequate in toto to deal with capitalism as currently structured and that it will need to reorganise but that self organisation will still need to play a key role in any genuinely effective reorganisation.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

That's part of what I'm saying.

Yes but it's apples and oranges.