Re: AUT: unions against the war????

[Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm pleased to hear the US unions are doing what they
are doing, even if it is not that much so far, in
response to rank and file pressure. In NZ, the
anti-war motions of unions seem to the product not of
rank and file pressure but of left bureaucrats in the
union leadership. It's coming from above, not below,
as far as I can see. This may change.

I think a motion is what you make of it. It can be
totally useless, or even a block to activity, an
excuse for not doing anything, but it can also be
exploited by anti-war rank and file and by outside
agitators. It's going to be pretty hard for right
bureaucrats in the unions here to stop us from
leafleting workers' stopwork meetings with anti-war
material now that their own national body has passed
an anti-war motion and urged its members to become
involved in anti-war demonstrations. And anti-war
motions can come back to haunt bureaucrats: look at
the way the UK train drivers' union found itself
unable to condemn the wildcat anti-war strike by
drivers, partly perhaps because it had an anti-war
motion on its books.

The fundamental problem I see with anti-war union
activity in the West is the way that most unions and
indeed many rank and file unionists are looking for
workers to become part of a Popular Front protesting
the war, rather than take action independently. For
instance, a letter by members of the executive of the
secondary teachers' union published in Auckland's
daily newspaper last week called not for strike action
to stop the war machine, but for union members to get
involved as individuals in street protests in a
coalition with churches, liberals, and even anti-war
businesses.

The liberal Pop Front strategy of appealing to the
conscience of Western governments and the UN has
failed so spectacularly that a number of liberal
theorists are being pushed to advocate a strategy of
direct action, including workers' direct action (cf
George Monbiot's recent article in the Guardian). This
is a move in the right direction, but workers' direct
action is still imagined as a mere tactic of the
Popular Front - workers are supposed to be a sort of
battering ram the liberal bureaucrats of the Pop Front
use and then discard.

We need to counterpose a United Front of labour to the
Popular Front being put together by the liberals.
Anti-war strikes need to be controlled by rank and
file committees of workers, not the leaders of Popular
Fronts like ANSWER or the Stop the War coalition.

In Auckland, we are planning to push for a blockade of
the frigate Te Mana, which is set to leave for
'peacekeeping' duties in the Gulf late nest month.
The liberals, who have organised a 'peace in the park'
concert instead of a militant demonstration for next
month's international day of action, want to get
Greenpeace etc involved and launch a flotilla against
the frigate in a 'spectacular' action. We're not
opposed to them doing this, because we think it is a
step in the right direction for them, but we want to
organise not an elite spectacular action but a mass
blockade of the road to the naval base and try to get
strike action going by non-naval base workers.
Flotillas, mass protests, and strike action by
wharfies were part of a campaign which got a ban on
nuke ships passed in NZ in 1985.

Btw, Neil, have you seen this critique of the ILWU -
Bush settlement by a rank and file ILWU member?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/message/3568

Cheers
Scott





=====
"Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


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