Construction workers at the centre of the class struggle
Daily we are told that we have to tighten our belts, accepts jobs losses, pay cuts, lose of pensions, increased work rates for the good of the national economy, to help it cope with the deepening recession. At British Airways they have even pressured workers to work for nothing for a whole month, with the threat of unemployment hanging over them. The idea of struggling against these relentless attacks is faced with the terrible fear of unemployment and the endless media campaign which tells us there is nothing we can do about our worsening living and working conditions.
And yet in the first weeks of June the weight of passivity and fear has been confronted by clear evidence that this does not need to be case. In the second week of June London Underground workers struck in order to protect 1,000 threatened jobs. Then postal workers in London and Scotland staged struggles against lay-offs, broken agreements and cuts in services. At the same time 900 construction workers at the Lindsey oil refinery site walked out in solidarity with 51 of their comrades who were laid off. This struggle burst into a series of wildcat solidarity strikes at major energy sector construction sites across Britain, when Total sacked 640 strikers on the 19th June. These struggles show that we do not have to accept our 'fate'.
Nationalism against the workers, and workers against nationalism
At the beginning of the year the Lindsey refinery workers were at the centre of a similar wave of wildcat strikes over laying off workers on the site. That struggle from its beginning was hampered by the weight of nationalism, epitomised by the slogan ‘British Jobs for British workers' and the appearance of Union Jacks on the picket line, as some of the strikers said that no foreign workers should be employed when British workers were being laid off. The ruling class used these nationalist ideas to great effect, exaggerating its impact and presenting the strike as being against the Portuguese and Italian workers who were employed on the site at the same time as the other workers were being laid off. However, this strike was brought to a very sudden and unforeseen end when banners began to appear calling on the Italian and Portuguese workers to join the struggle or proclaiming ‘workers of the world unite', and Polish construction workers joined the wildcats in Plymouth. Instead of a long-drawn out defeat of the workers, with increasing tension between workers from different countries, the Lindsey workers gained an extra 101 jobs, kept the Italian and Portuguese workers' jobs for them, gained a promise that no workers would be laid off as there were jobs on the site, and went back united.
This new wave of struggles has broken out on a much clearer basis: solidarity with sacked workers. 51 contract workers were laid off at the end of the 2nd week of June because their contracts ended. At the same time, another contractor was taking on workers. The laid-off workers were told by Post-it notes on their clocking on cards that they were no longer needed. This brought an immediate response from hundreds of workers on the site, who walked out in solidarity. It was felt that these workers were being victimised for the role they had played in the earlier strike. Then on June 19th Total, the owners of the site, took the unexpected step of sacking 640 strikers. There had already been solidarity strikes on other sites but with the news of these sackings workers walked out on sites all over the country. "About 1,200 angry workers gathered at the main gates yesterday waving placards castigating ‘greedy bosses'. Fellow workers at power stations, refineries, and plants in Cheshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, South Wales and Teesside walked out in a show of solidarity." (The Independent, 20/6/9). The Times reported that, "There were also signs that the strike action was spreading to the nuclear industry as EDF Energy said that contracted workers at its Hinkley Point reactor in Somerset had walked out." (20/6/9).
Faced with this movement it is harder for the media to play the nationalist card. It would be a surprise if there was not a weight on nationalism on some workers and the media know how to focus their attention on them. The BBC website has a picture of a picket line with workers holding up a banner saying "put British workers first not last", while The Guardian interviewed a striker who said "We've no grievance with foreign workers as such but we feel that they should supplement what we cannot provide" (20/6/9). On the other hand, right wing papers such as The Times and Daily Telegraph who would usually make full use of such sentiments do not mention them - rather they concentrate on Total's action and the danger of the struggles spreading.
The ruling class is extremely concerned about this struggle precisely because they cannot so easily distort it into a nationalist campaign. They fear it could spread into the construction sector generally and maybe beyond. Workers can see that if Total get away with sacking striking workers other bosses will follow suit. This poses the strike as a clear class issue, of real concern to all workers.
The obvious class nature of this struggle also encompasses a vision of solidarity with foreign worker. As a sacked worker makes clear: "Total will soon realise they have unleashed a monster. It is disgraceful that this has happened without any consultation. It is also unlawful and it makes me feel sick. If they get away with this, the rest of the industry will crumble and it will be like a turkey cull. Workers will be decimated and unskilled employees from abroad will be brought in on the cheap, treated like scum and sent back after the job is done. There is a serious possibility that the lights will go out because of this. We just cannot stand by and see workers discarded like an oily cloth." (The Independent 20/6/9).
This worker's indignation is that of the whole working class. Not only because of Total's actions, but all the other attacks they are suffering or seeing. Millions of workers are being cast away like so much rubbish by the ruling class now that they can no longer suck enough surplus value from them. Bosses expecting workers to accept wage cuts or even work for free and to be happy about it! Total's contempt is that of the whole capitalist class: how dare workers be so uppity, they must be crushed!
The need for a common struggle
No matter what happens in the coming days this struggle has demonstrated that workers do not have to accept attacks; that they can resist. More than that, they have seen that the only way we can defend ourselves is by defending each other. For the second time this year we have seen wildcat solidarity strikes. There are reports that the Lindsey strikes sent out flying pickets to Wales and Scotland. There are construction sites all over the country, particularly in the capital, where the Olympic sites group together large numbers of workers from many nationalities. Sending delegations to these sites calling for solidarity action would send out the clearest message yet that this is a question that affects the future for all workers, whatever their origin. The London postal and underground workers are also trying to defend themselves against similar attacks and have every interest in forming a common front.
The old slogan of the workers' movement - workers of the world unite - is often ridiculed by the bosses who can never go beyond their competing national interests. But the world wide crisis of their system is making it clearer and clearer that workers everywhere have the same interests: to unite in defence of our living standards and to raise the perspective of a different form of society, based on world-wide solidarity and cooperation.
Phil 21/6/9.
Comments
Workers' nationalism
Every word is a generalisation, including and especially the word 'nationalism'. Have you taken a very careful look at the website workers.org.uk ?
'workers nationalism?' - I don't think so.
I checked it out - it's the site of the 'Communist Party of Britain marxist leninist' inspired by Reg Birch; and this Maoist/Stalinist version of nationalism is at root the same nationalism as the nationalism of the BNP, Labour or the Tories. Here is the CPML's argument:
Workers' Nationalism
WORKERS, APRIL 2009 ISSUE
Founded in 1968, the Communist Party of Britain regards Britain as composed overwhelmingly of the British working class in all its diversity. Workers are the nation, though the nation is not yet for the working class, nor do all workers yet recognise that their class constitutes the nation.
Britain is where people first overthrew a feudal monarchy and where the scientific enlightenment forged the first industrial revolution and the first working class. It was within the framework of the nation and for the good of its industry that systems of education and health, and the skills of its people were developed, and working class organisation in the form of trade unions was invented and fought for to protect the gains that had been made.
Today’s Britain – robbed by finance capital and its apologists in government, its industry deliberately laid waste, its laws dictated by a foreign power (the EU), its parliament anachronistic, corrupt, supine and subservient both to the EU and the US, its reputation now in tatters – cries out to be rescued by its people.
The revolutionary possibility of this country run by workers in the interest of the working class is what we call “workers’ nationalism”. Workers have the understanding, based on their history, education and the knowledge which comes from work, to put together a national plan for everything from economics and foreign policy to local government and the environment. The nation is key, because workers have no choice other than to fight for a future where they live and raise their families. We know best about our country; others know best about theirs.
Capitalism, however, will resist this to the death. A spent force, so increasingly vicious, it regards the destruction of sovereign nations as the solution to prolonging its life just a little bit longer. Workers’ nationalism means that each nation must fight to build socialism in its own land, the only alternative to capitalism.
If you come to live and work in Britain, you become part of our geography, history and working class culture. Join a union and, more importantly, join our struggle to build an independent nation led by workers. Be clear and committed on this national class question. That is the only possible basis for internationalism
Workers' Nationalism - reply to Alf
Recommend that you and workers read Will Podmore's 2004 biography 'Reg Birch: engineer, trade unionist, communist', published by Bellman Books. Details are on the workers.org.uk website.
How does recommending a
How does recommending a biography of a Maoist trade unionist counter any of the arguments that Alf has made. A biography of this dedicated servant of capitalism only reinforces the quote given that clearly demonstrates the bourgeois ideology defended by this organisation.
Reply to Samyasa
Alf's reply hardly constituted an argument. Samyasa should really study Will Podmore's biography of Reg Birch, then hopefully his expressed opinion of him will change. Whether Samyasa can do more for the benefit of the working class than Reg Birch did remains to be seen. He will certainly find it difficult to achieve without the combined struggles of workers by trade unions.
Workers (sic) Nationalism
Fully agree with Samyasa - and I say that as someone who has read Podmore's 'hagiography' of Birch.
The CPB (ML) are a deeply anti working class organisation: pro nation, anti immigration and pro capitalism (as long as it's run by a workers' state). That they support the more negative elements in the current strike movement comes as no surprise.
If Anonymous wants to convince us we are wrong he needs to tell us what the alternative to capitalism's crisis is. How should workers be responding? Rather than citing the holy works of Birch why don't you discuss with us - or is it just that now that Albania & China have 'gone capitalist' there isn't a blueprint for British (sic) workers to follow (sorry, be dragged to).
For a world without borders, Morven
Lindsey strike and the unions
After reading the article 'workers nationalism' I agree with Alf when he points out that such arguments are an anethema to or should be to any marxist. How any marxist could argue that workers from other countries have to accept 'our culture'is redolent of any bourgeoise ideology. How they can attract any class conscious worker to their organisation is beyond me.
To go back to the original post on the Lindsey strike. Not only will the capitalists fear such strike action which puts workers solidarity at it's centre but the unions will also fear such a move. If the Lindsey workers can begin to organise independently on our class terain and pull other workers behind them then the unions will be afraid and may start to join the employers in victimising the more class conscious workers.
The next step is what action can we take in not only giving support but also to help to spread the strikes. This strike action may prove to be a pivotal moment in the class struggle.
Alf pointed out the
Alf pointed out the incipient nationalism in a publication of CPB-ML. Two possible responses to this could have been (a) demonstrating the quote was not nationalist, or (b) that nationalism is not anti-working class. You did neither.
.
Instead, you appealed to a biography of a Maoist militant, without explaining how it has anything to do with the article or the problem of nationalism.
.
The ICC is completely opposed to any form of nationalism and we believe the unions are anti-working class formations that serve to imprison the proletariat and its struggles. We certainly support the combined struggles of workers and fraternisation across all boundaries. The unions, however, are active barriers to this process which is why we are against them. The only way the working class will achieve such combined struggles is by destroying the unions and forming its own councils to co-ordinate its struggle.
Workers' Nationalism
It is good to know that Morven has read Will Podmore's book on Reg Birch, engineer, trade unionist, communist.
He asks me how workers should be responding to the current crisis. Well, for one thing, does he, and the others who have commented recently, actually think that the working class would be in a better self-defensive situation by 'abolishing' all trade unions? What would the mass of organised workers say to that?! I don't pretend to have all the answers for the working class, nor, as I understand it, does the CPB-ML, as it is up to our class to work out what it will do. I don't belong to the CPB-ML, but am thinking of applying to join, after many years of reading stuff on the ICC and IBRP and many other websites and attending many ICC and some CWO meetings. The question is whether or not a worker's views are those of and for our working class.
Anonymous says "it is up to
Anonymous says "it is up to our class to work out what it will do" - yes, but don't revolutionaries have a role to play? As you will know if you have read the press of the communist left, it doesn't call for the abolition of the unions, but for workers to take control of their own struggles and, if possible, generalise them, open them out to other sectors. This seems to be what is happening in Britain at the moment.
As for the unions, leaders like Birch have always spread the lie that unions of today are the same as those in the 19th century, basically there to fight for them. This mystification is powerful but workers are not always fooled by it. The current strike wave hints at this, a minority of workers are reaching out from prison bars of trade unionism and starting to organise their own struggles - this can only be saluted.
Finally on the CPB (ML) - their problem is that they do think they have the answer - British nationalism - when they don't even understand the question.
Reply re the 'it's up to' remarks by anonymous
Workers continue to organise in unions for self-defence. All manner of self-proclaimed revolutionaries seek to play their roles and workers consider what they have to say. There weren't many union leaders who did as much for the workers he represented as Reg Birch, in so far as a union can serve them. Whereas the old apothecaries had 'a cure for every ill', it seems to me that some of the communist left have 'an ill for every cure'. Whether or not unions fight for the workers they represent and the extent and manner and effectiveness with which they do so, or not, is not for ever set on unchangable records, but is subject to constant examination and pressure by workers concerned.
We're not posing the
We're not posing the abolition of the trade unions in an abstract way. What we need is the abolition of the trade unions by workers themselves as they struggle to break out of the confines they impose. The bourgeoisie itself rarely abolishes trade unions, except in very specific circumstances such as periods when the working class has already (usually by the left, including the trade unions) been more or less crushed. Nazi Germany would be an example of this and even there various "labour fronts" were maintained.
.
Regardless of the status of trade unions, the only perspective facing the working class is a continual degeneration of its living standards. The only defence against this is massive struggles which, to be effective, have to break outside of the union prison.
.
The way the CPGB-ML partipicant seems to pose the question is typically leftist: there can only be struggle in the unions, therefore no union = no struggle. This is disproved continually in the living experience of the struggle.
.
And, lastly, I note that there has still been no response on the core question of nationalism.
We're not posing the..
First, I must remind folk that I do not belong to the CPBML, so cannot be said to be writing on behalf of them, but freely admit that my own thinking is influenced by what I have read of what they have had to say.
I have not seen any insistance that workers can only struggle by means of unions, but in so far as unions connect workers to each other in struggles, they seem to be necessary, in the apparent absence of the workers councils which the 'communist left' constantly advocates.
As for 'the core question of nationalism', the capitalist system is de-industrialising Britain. I do not reckon that any one nation is likely to be entirely self-sufficient, but a considerable extent of being able to meet our needs by our own efforts, using all the skills here, would provide work and reduce environmental damage. Tonight's evening paper in my area reports that local jobs have been moved to China and that dozens of ex-staff have taken the American-owned areospace giant to an industrial tribunal over the closure of its ... site. I don't blame workers in China for 'taking' jobs from here, but want work for workers in Britain and see nothing jingoistic about that, and think that workers of the world should unite, in the mutual best interests of enhancing the world and local circumstances in which they happen to try to live.
Rather than attempt to continue a personal effort to deal with these subjects, I suggest that workers who wish to find out what the CPBML has to say should look at the workers.org.uk website and read Will Podmore's book on Reg Birch. Regards, DKT - 23-6-2009 - 22.17.
Please note that the CPBML
Please note that the CPBML is not the CPGB-ML.