AUT: Mersey Docks Dispute - An Afterword

[Dave Graham <davgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mersey Docks dispute - Afterword

I had thought that I would not have cause to put pen to paper on this subject again - reviving memories is not always wise and I also have the feeling of betraying confidences when I do produce something. However, I recently attended a Socialist Workers Party meeting here in Liverpool, where the film the dockers made of their dispute, helped by playwright Jimmy McGovern, was shown. The purpose of the meeting was to raise money for a lobby of the upcoming Labour party conference in Bournemouth in September. I am not concerned here to argue the merits or otherwise of lobbying the Labour party, nor is this a revue of the film although I would urge people to try and see it - and more than once if possible.

Instead, I want to try and overcome some mythology about the dispute which already appears to have grown up and which is, possibly unwittingly, aided and abetted by the dockers themselves, who still need to publicise their film, since it is one of the sources of revenue for their 'Initiative Factory'.

Most of the evening was taken up with the showing of the film but afterwards there were two themes constantly and explicitly repeated and since, typically these days, no opportunity was given for discussion, I am obliged once again to write something. The fact that no opportunity was given for debate is in my view an indication of the terminal crisis of the 'Left' in this country - it is simply unable to allow light to be shone on its fundamental assumptions and attitudes. Rather, its members have to be prevented from thinking by an endless series of campaigns and stunts to keep them busy.

The first theme was the assertion that Bill Morris, General Secretary of the T&GWU, "betrayed" the dockers? dispute. I find this a totally superstitious belief, more so since it is uncritically repeated like a litany at every opportunity. Many dockers and certainly those of us in the supporters group never expected Morris to act in any other way than he did. His behaviour was consistent and predictable - in that case how does it help our understanding to use the word "betrayal??

You can only be betrayed by someone whom you believe shares the same beliefs, principles, aims and aspirations as yourself. Now, think hard about this because unless some hard and critical thinking is done, we are in danger of falling into the same banal stupidities as the Left. Morris, the T & G bureaucracy, the ITF and others in 'this great movement of ours' worked hard all right - but to contain, divert and prevent this dispute from ever breaking out of the bounds that they were determined should contain it. Since the dispute ended, the T & G has moved to end any influence the dockers may have had inside that organisation. Just ask any of the several dockers who were lay officials or who were active in that union what they think of the T & G now. This is evidence of a consistent and deliberate policy. Anyone now proposing that somehow we can pressurise this machine to do our bidding must be able to answer these questions - and the notion of "betrayal" simply prevents those !
questions from being formulated.

Now, we were fortunate here in Liverpool in that, practically at least, if not theoretically or ideologically, a section of workers, because of their particular history and because, as the dockers film itself says - "you can move a factory, but you can't move a dock" - had been able to maintain their own autonomous organisation which was to some extent independent of the union. I wrote extensively about this in my reporting of the dispute at the time and the reasons for this were and are important. They give us a clue as to the political composition of the movement, the internal strengths and weaknesses of the workers own movement.

Again, the dockers film shows this - Dempsey, the local union official tells Bradley, the Torside boss, "I can't control them" - precisely so. The film makes the dockers argument for them, which the Left doesn't understand or ignores.  The dispute was deliberately provoked to destroy this unofficial, autonomous organisation. Any docker activist will tell you "we knew they [the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company] were out to get us".

Some of the dockers at the centre of the dispute knew this; those of us close to them knew this. It's a pity the Left still does not know it or worse suppresses it. After all if workers don't need their leadership what is there left for the Left? And it's a simple picture to paint to keep your membership active - pressurising union leaderships who inevitably "betray" a heroic, but somehow mute working class.

What I resent is that the real truth of the dispute, something that would be of concrete use to other workers in struggle, is being smothered and potentially lost by those who claim to be the workers' friends. What the unions are today and how and if we can make use of them is a far more complex problem and needs much more thorough analysis and discussion than the Left is capable of providing.

The second myth, in my view, was the assertion by the SWP speakers that lorry drivers, T & G members, when asked by pickets why they were crossing the picket line, said "it's not official [recognised by the union] - get Morris to back it". The inference being that they were only waiting for the leadership to give the word. It was even further suggested that Morris should ORDER his members to respect the dockers? picket line.

Now here we have such a caricature of reality that it is really difficult to know where to begin to unravel fact and fantasy. Firstly, if drivers did say this then it is quite obviously a cop out, an excuse not to respect the dockers picket. Secondly, if it is true, there are myriad ways around it provided the drivers themselves were prepared to do it. Some drivers did indeed refuse to cross the picket line, but not enough of them. And we need to work very hard to understand why this is the case. As for the argument that Morris should order workers show to solidarity - well I don't think any solidarity given on that basis is worth having. In any case given the history of the docks, it is doubtful if it would have been forthcoming even if Morris had ordered it. But it does betray an attitude of mind - that of the 70s and the 'big battalions' - the miners, the printers, the steelworkers and so on. And we all know what happened to them.

Why transport drivers were so hostile to the dispute and what role transport plays in a modern capitalist economy is an issue we tried hard to research and understand throughout the dispute. This is another issue that relates to this concept of class composition, which is so vital in any understanding of modern working class struggle. This exploration of what this composition was and how it was changing was what I was attempting to do in my reports throughout the dispute.

Those reports had nothing to do with 'objective' studies of capitalism so beloved of the Left. For far too long now they have been presenting us with picture of the world where capital is 'out there' doing all sorts of things to us while we are portrayed as dumb and passive victims. Instead I wanted to show how our struggle had shaped the world we were in, how capital reacts to us and not the other way round. How we are 'the insurgent element' or as Thatcher called us 'the enemy within'. How could it be otherwise when we are 'living' labour and capital is 'dead' labour?

Towards the end of the dockers film there is a scene involving Macca and his eldest son, a former Torside docker, one of those who precipitated the dispute. It is an exposition of a generation gap and an exploration of a new social reality - a recognition that a previous form of struggle is no longer relevant. A gap between an older generation for whom there were certainties - solidarity, mutual aid, the union - and a younger generation for whom these things were no longer certainties. How a new generation, a new class composition of workers comes to grips with this new reality will be the history of the 21st century.

I said I was not going to write a review of the dockers? film. But in writing this I have realised that it is much more profound piece of work than I had first realised. Although I wanted to dispel what I believe is a mythology that is being constructed around the docker?s struggle, all I wanted to write is already contained in the film. It just needs people to see it and use some critical sense.


DG
____________________________________________________________________________

Dave Graham?s reports on the Mersey docks dispute written during the period November 1995 to February 1998 are available at the following sites:-

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/dockhome.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/june97.html

and at

http://www.labournet.org/documents/GLOBAL/dg.html

These reports [except the last one on the labournet site] were all reprinted as issues 11,12 and 13 of ?Collective Action Notes? which is available from
Collective Action Notes
POB 22962
Balto., MD 21203
USA

________________________________________________________________________________




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your own FREE e-mail address at http://www.merseymail.com/


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---