(Militant No. 243, 14 February 1975 p. 3)
By Peter Taaffe
A reader has written to Militant asking what position we take towards the recent introduction of the “trade union unity” law in Portugal. The Provisional Government – backed by the “Communist” Party – has ratified the law which imposes one trade union federation for the country – “The Intersindical.” This has provoked enormous controversy in Portugal and internationally.
The capitalists and their press – in Portugal and in this country – have naturally seized on the fact that the main inspiration for the law has come from the Portuguese CP, to scream about “a new dictatorship” and the imminence of “Civil War.”
Sam Russell – on behalf of the British CP – writing in the Morning Star on 1st February, therefore concludes that anyone who opposes the law must have at least one foot in the camp of reaction.
But opposition to the law has also come from a number of organisations – along them the Portuguese Socialist Party which has organised demonstrations of upwards of 15,000 in Lisbon. Part of the reason for this has undoubtedly been the bureaucratic desire of the Socialist Party Leaders to have “their own” trade union federation.
But they would not have been able to mobilise opposition amongst the working class unless a section of the Portuguese workers viewed this law – and the intentions of its authors – with distrust. Why should this be so if, as the CP claims, the law represents a step forward for the Portuguese working class?
It arises from the arbitrary way – relying on the capitalist state – in which the CP has imposed a sham “unity” on the Portuguese workers. In view of the record of the CP over the last nine months, many workers will also fear the use to which such “unity” will be put.
Of course Marxists stand for the unity of the trade unions. As the basic organisations of the working class, the unions should embrace all workers irrespective of their race, religion or political views (with the exception of incorrigible fascist element who we would advocate be excluded from the unions).
We would oppose any attempts in Britain for instance, to divide the unions along religious or political lines as is the case in France and Italy at the present time. Militant has moreover also opposed the splitting away of impatient groups of active workers, who after defeats, have wanted to abandon existing unions in favour of “new” unions. Thus we opposed the split from the GMWU by the Pilkington strike leaders in 1970.
France & Italy
In France and Italy we would advocate the unity of the divided trade union organisations into one organisation. So too in Portugal, one unified trade union organisation would be of enormous advantage to the workers in the big struggles which loom.
But every honest, thinking worker in these countries would be in complete opposition to the interference of the capitalists, through their government apparatus, in the internal affairs of the unions and their relations between each other.
Any attempt to ‘regulate’ and impose unity from above by the capitalist state would meet with resistance and be a sure fire guarantee that the unions would continue to go their separate ways. While supporting unification of the unions we would at the same time defend the right of workers to maintain separate organisations if they so desired. Genuine Marxism convinces by argument and example – not by coercion.
Sam Russell points to the advantages of the trade union movement in Britain … “Would Britain’s trade union movement be better off if instead of one trade union movement within the Trades Union Congress there were separate trade unions for Labour left and Communists, Social Democrats, Catholics and Conservatives and separate trade union centres to which each were affiliated?”
The answer to that question must be “No.” But Sam Russell “forgets” a little “trifle.” The unity of the trade union movement in Britain has been arrived at after long historical experience and moreover only as a result of the mass of trade unionists voluntarily coming to understand the necessity of a unified organisation.
But there are still divisions within the trade union movement in Britain, e.g. obsolete craft prejudices in some industries. Would Sam Russell suggest a law in Britain by the present Labour Government compelling unions to amalgamate? If he, and his party, the CP, were foolish enough to do so they would meet with the furious opposition of the great majority of British workers.
Amalgamations
Yet amalgamations, while being advocated by the capitalists for their own class reasons, would also benefit the workers in some industries. In the print industry for instance it would enormously assist the workers in combating the employers who attempt to play off one union against another. But amalgamations imposed by the capitalist state would impede real unity. The British working class have instinctively understood that this would constitute the thin end of the wedge. Having set a precedent the capitalists would then be eager to “regulate” and alter other “disagreeable” aspects of internal union affairs.
There is no way to bring about real unity of the unions in Portugal except by the workers themselves through their own experience and education seeing the need to voluntarily combine their forces.
But the Portuguese CP wish the state in Portugal to undertake this task for them. Yet the factories and the land are still in the hands of the capitalists and the landlords in Portugal. The Government – and their army and police – defends private property from the working class. During the Russian revolution in a situation roughly similar to Portugal today Lenin – who the CP claim to follow – wrote… “the basic rule, the first commandment, of any trade union movement is not to rely on the “state” but rely on the strength of one’s class (Lenin’s emphasis). The state is an organ of the ruling class.” (Collected Works Vol. 25 P.125). The Portuguese CP have broken this and indeed every other principle of Marxism by serving in a capitalist government and by using this government to impose “trade union unity” from above.
The very fact that a section of Portuguese workers are coerced into “unity” means that split-offs and separate trade union federations could be formed later. By imposing unification the CP leaders could in the long run reinforce the divisions amongst the working class. The capitalist have already been enabled to further confuse the politically confused workers and peasants with propaganda about the so-called “new totalitarianism.” The CP therefore facilitate the work of reaction by their completely false position on TU “unity.”
But there is no virtue in trade union unity just for its own sake. A united trade union movement in Portugal – with over 50% of the labour force organised into unions – could become a mighty lever for solving the burning problems of the Portuguese working class and for carrying through the socialist transformation of the country. But since the 25th April revolution the CP leadership have shown again and again that they will use their power to hold the working class back. The CP leaders have not hesitated to denounce strikes. The leader of the Portuguese CP, Alvaro Cunhal in a speech at his party’s conference (reprinted in the January 1975 issue of Marxism Today – “theoretical organ” of the British CP) expresses views worthy of Denis Healey … “a policy of real austerity must be applied, cutting immediately non-essential State expenditure, and specifically now that the war is finished, as much military expenditure as possible … The workers are the first to understand that to construct a new and democratic Portugal it will be necessary to work long and hard. The economy is running at a loss. Even if all bourgeois profits were eliminated and wealth distributed more fairly, our national production would not at its present level, secure the accumulation necessary to produce rapid economic development.” Cunhal goes on to call for “equal sacrifices.” There is not an atom of socialism in this approach! It is the speech of a minister in a capitalist government. Cunhal admits that “half a dozen families” control Portugal yet utters not a peep about expropriating them!
In the light of its record and speeches like this many Portuguese workers undoubtedly fear that one trade union federation dominated by the CP will be used as a giant brake to hold them back. There is no mechanism on a capitalist basis for “equality of sacrifice.” Any “sacrifices” which the Portuguese workers make will benefit the Portuguese capitalists in the same way that the “Backing Britain” campaign and other con-tricks would have lined the bosses’ pockets in this country if the working class had been taken in by them.
For complete and unconditional independence of the unions from the capitalist state! For voluntary unity of the unions in one federation! For the election and right of immediate recall of all TU officials! Officials to receive no more than the average wage of a skilled worker! For immediate increases in wages, cuts in the working week and a sliding scale of wages to combat inflation – the cost of living index to be worked out by the unions, together with housewives and small businessmen!
Programme
No redundancies – share out the work with no loss of pay! For workers control of production and distribution – open the books of all companies to the factory committees! For a comprehensive and fully free health services, a massive housing programme through a nationalised building industry. For the nationalisation of the monopolies with minimum compensation on the basis of proven need!
These demands would form the main elements of a genuine Marxist programme. At the same time it has to be seen that there can be no “middle way” for the trade unions in Portugal. As in Britain the colossal power of the unions must be used to effect the socialist transformation of society or the union leaders having been forced to come to terms with the capitalists and their state will rein in the movement of the masses. The Portuguese unions can avoid the second disastrous road only by arming itself with a clear Marxist programme and leadership and preparing the workers for a Socialist Portugal.
Schreibe einen Kommentar