From: "Dave Bedggood" <dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 21:51:49 +0000
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: wharfies dispute - a lot further to run


Replying to Tony H again.
DaveB
> 
> _____________________________
> 
> After reading the last few posts by Dave B, I kind of realise that he is
> a bit misguided as to what this dispute is about. Now, I am against the
> idea of productivity, in case you hadn't noticed, and I will go on to
> talk about it - but this dispute was never really about productivity.

I'm mystified to know why Tony thinks I am against productivity. Or 
why he should be. I am in favour of productivity. But the way to get 
it is not on the bosses terms - overwork of the few and unemployment of 
the many - but a shorter working week without loss of pay. I thought 
the SA came out of IS which came  out of Trotskyism in 1949?
 
> It is a direct frontal assault by several ruling class warriors backed
> up sections of the ruling class against one of Australias most important
> unions. It was designed to win for the ruling class a moral, not
> economic, victory against its enemy.

Well I suppose that is the argument you have to make to claim a moral 
victory for the MUA. But the bosses are not concerned about morality, 
only the bottom line - increasingly productivity as in increasing 
exploitation. Bourgeois morality is expendable as the attacks on 
workers around the world show. 1.5 killed in Iraq by the UN since 
1990 - this is a victory for control of oil not the moral high 
ground.  Attacking the MUA is about smashing the unions to 
eliminate working class defence against increased exploitation. 

> That is why 100,000+ strikers marched through Melbourne a couple of days
> ago  - because the fuckers failed to break the MUA, which has been
> adopted by unionists everywhere. The reason why there is a certain
> amount of euphoria (which, if socialists don't share in a bit, then they
> have no heart and never deserve to break out of their isolation) is
> because this is the first time in almost two decades where we have
> beaten them off.

Thats great. But marching in itself doesnt do anything but give off 
good vibes. You can't live on a moral victory.  What was the content of 
the speeches?  Did the SA get up and argue for the need to  extend
the strike indefinitely under rank and file control until the MUA got 
all their jobs back on full pay and no redundancies.  If so, good on you.
Otherwise it was a rah rah to stick it to Howard and implicitly call 
on Labor to get Australia back to normal.  
 
> I actually think that the MUA are right to go back in the gates at this
> stage. They are right to claim this (however small and however
> temporary) victory for their members. They know as do we all that
> Patricks and the government are working their fevered brains over so as
> to sack them again - this time "legally". Which means that Patricks will
> have to physically try and force them off the wharves again, and then it
> will then be on for young and old.

Of course they are right to go back in. But if they had gone in 
before the court decision, and occupied they wouldnt now be conceding 
point after point to Corrigan. And they would be in a much better 
position to resist further attempts by Corrigan to sack them 
'legally'. 

> You know why I am happy about that prospect? Because ordinary workers
> will once again be on the stage, and it is out of that that
> revolutionaries are born, workers start organising themselves, rank and
> file groups start forming, the officials start to be exposed, a shift in
> politics can occur, the question of "can there be a revolution in
> Australia - and how?" can be raised.

All of these points are good. But they don't happen unless you make 
them happen. The SA ( out of IS) I assume believes that workers can 
spontaneously acheive class consciousness. That rank-and-file groups 
form themselves and so on. None of these happen without the active 
intervention of a revolutionary party to explain why each step is 
necessary. Otherwise, no matter how euphoric you feel about workers 
on the move, the movement will be defeated by the superior, planned, 
organised, conspiracy of the ruling class. 

> This may sound spontaneist to you, but its simply an acknowledgement of
> reality. You know I would dearly love there to be 10
> worker/revolutionaries in every workplace so that we can seize these
> opportunities right now - but there aren't. I'll let you into a little
> secret - we (Socialist Alternative) are one of the biggest rev groups in
> Melbourne, and we have been doing well in the last 2 weeks, recruiting
> ten, have a grand total of (glancing at the newly updated phone list in
> front of me) 54 members.

Good on you. With 54 members in Melbourne you should be rocking the 
rafters. But if you leave 'reality' to do the work, you can have 554 
members and still make no impact on events. Revolutionaries have to create 
reality by applying the programme as a lever. There have always  
been plenty of large groups, the British RCP for one, which was also extremely 
active. Today the RCP has liquidated itself. It comes down to programme.  I 
don't see much value in the SA line as you have presented it in your 
posts. Its great to be for revolution, but how are you going to make it?

> Now, if the situation hots up again I may take my soapbox over to the
> building site across the road, denounce CFMEU officials, and call on the
> workers to strike indefinitely and set up a strike committee (and I am
> being serious here), but for now I will continue to sell my
> organisations magazines around my workplace, try to set up a union
> branch here, try to turn people into revolutionaries, and contribute to
> my organisation's agit/prop routine.

Of course this is what should have been happening while the lockout 
was on. There was no way that a militant occupation could win unless 
workers in every major industry walked off the job indefinitely. If 
both of these things had begun  to happen, then it would have been 
timely to call for a general strike. The talk of 'general strikes' 
which are no more than day stoppages debases the language of 
communism. A general strike properly understood poses the question of 
which class will rule because it shuts down the whole country. 
Workers have to be prepared for this.  If it "hots up" again - meaning, 
I take it that the MUA rank and file break from the MUA leadership, 
then what you are suggesting is bang on.  What you are doing 
meanwhile however  sounds very routinist.  The SA should be very 
un-routine right now,  doing a de-briefing  on the whole struggle, 
and trying to cadreise the new recruits as quickly as possible. 

> And believe me we know full well the importance of the productivity, and
> national interest questions. And yes we spend a large amount of time and
> space talking about the role of their officials and their extreme
> preponderance to selling out workers.

Lets see some revolutionary tactics come out of the talk.

> Its good to look around the world and feel that at last our side might
> be on the move again. And we can feel with determination and a bit of
> dismay how much rebuilding the revolutionary left has to do. One thing
> we definitely have to rediscover is the difference between applying the
> ideas and methods that have been tested and tried in the past, in a
> sterile way, and in a way that relates and engages real life struggles.

I can't respond to this without knowing which ideas you are rejecting 
and which you are discovering in real life.

> You know what I and my orgainsation (and ultimately the whole movement
> here) would find useful? - Discussion of how best, practically speaking,
> to get our ideas across and how to start shifting in a revolutionary
> direction, the wider movement.

Well I start by challenging your ideas on how to do this.




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---