BY ALISON DELLIT
In GLW #479, Leon Parissi from Workers Liberty, an affiliate party to the Socialist Alliance, accuses me of "cheering on those voices who are in favour of decreased union influence in the ALP". But what I, and the Democratic Socialist Party (also a Socialist Alliance affiliate), "cheer on" is decreased ALP influence in the unions.
Parissi is quite right to assert that it was a positive step for the unions to give expression to workers' political interests — and the logical end to such a step should have been the formation of a party capable of fighting in the interests of working people.
But the ALP is not such a beast. The ALP is a thoroughly pro-capitalist party, dependent on funding from big business, supportive of Australian imperialism and racist to the core.
The prices and incomes accord that was initiated by the Hawke Labor government in 1983 resulted in falls in real wages, and a dramatic loss in working conditions. The introduction, under Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, of enterprise bargaining, resulted in the first decline in the female-to-male wage ratio in 20 years, and opened the door wide open for individual contracts. In the early 1990s, under a federal Labor government, full-time permanent jobs began the terrifying slide towards elimination in favour of part time and casual work.
By far the worst crime of the ALP, however, is that party's influence, through the trade union bureaucracy, over workers' struggles. The prices and incomes accord was the worst example of pro-capitalist union collaboration with the bosses under the influence of the ALP.
But other examples include the inaction of the ACTU and other unions when the militant NSW Builders Labourers Federation branch was deregistered in 1984 (the union was federally deregistered in 1986), and the wind-back of the workers' compensation struggle in NSW, as Labor Premier Bob Carr's bill was passed on November 29 barely changed.
Parissi argues that even unions unaffiliated to the Labor Party can work "hand in glove" with it "against the interests of their members". Affiliation, he argues "is not the main issue". I agree — the problem is the ALP's political domination of the union movement; the formal ties between unions and the ALP is an organisational expression of this.
Workers will be convinced of the need to politically break with the ALP through their own experiences in struggle — when, as happened to many in the NSW workers' compensation dispute, they see the ALP cut the ground out from under their fight. That is why the DSP and the Socialist Alliance must engage with, and become part of the leadership of, such struggles. But doing so does not get us out of taking a position on union affiliation to the ALP.
If we do not argue for unions to disaffiliate from the ALP, how can we seriously argue that the Socialist Alliance is worthwhile? Should we be arguing that the unions pay money in affiliation fees to a pro-capitalist outfit rather than give it to pro-working class electoral formations?
The ALP bans members of the Socialist Alliance from Labor Party membership. Union votes within the ALP can only be exercised by ALP members. Thus any union member who joins the Socialist Alliance is unable to represent their union within the ALP.
If the Socialist Alliance does not oppose union affiliation to the ALP, then we will end up telling some of our supporters not to join the alliance, but instead to "wage the good fight" within the ALP.
Which brings us to the central question — is it worth arguing for unions to maintain their organisational ties to the ALP? Parissi argues that rank-and-file mobilisations have the power to impose upon the ALP policies that are in the unionists' interests. But I cannot see why rank-and-file mobilisations would be less effective if the unions were not affiliated to the ALP.
The Socialist Alliance should be, and is, helping to organise mass action to defend workers' rights and conditions. We need to be encouraging others to help us in this, not arguing that union members have a "separate" role of arguing within the ALP for change.
If Parissi really believes that socialist unionists should argue for continued union affiliation to the ALP, then the logical step would be to argue against socialist unionists individually leaving the ALP and joining the Socialist Alliance.
Parissi says: "The Socialist Alliance has the potential to grow into a pole of attraction for working-class activists willing to fight reformist ideas and reformist practice. There is still a long way to go before this potential becomes a reality." It is hard to see, however, how we can make this potential a reality if we adopt a position of arguing that socialist unionists should stay in the ALP or that they should fight for union political campaign money to be given to the ALP rather than to a real working-class party.
[Alison Dellit is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 13, 2002.
Visit the