Back to the Docks Dispute Home Page
In my last report I gave a taste of what it was like to have a new and younger generation of activists get involved in the dockers dispute. Since then, others have reported on what happened over the weekend of 28/30 September here in Liverpool. Those with access to the Internet can see an eye witness report at
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/ainfos.html
Certainly it did not all go smoothly. As the dockers admitted at the mass meeting which followed, mistakes were made, communication was not all it should have been and so on. The press of course tried to make a field day of it, imagine working class dockers and this new breed - anarchists, eco-warriors or whatever. What could they have in common, how could they possibly work together ? Journalists came to 'sniff' round and of course since the story they wanted to write was already written, they merely had their suburban prejudices confirmed.
And also 'of course' the union in the form of Bill Morris demanded that the dockers disassociate themselves from these 'anarchists'. The unions are always sensitive to any challenge to their way of doing things and move quickly to stamp on this kind of 'adventurism' - well Morris got his answer at the Friday mass meeting. Not only did the dockers not disassociate themselves from the events of the weekend - but they said openly that it had proved a fillip to their campaign and given them the confidence to continue. Certainly the numbers on the picket lines went up and of course given the publicity, the finances to maintain their struggle have gone up as well.
Well the 'eco-warriors' or whatever they call themselves [and there's a difference, nobody has yet succeeded in pinning a label on such a diverse movement] brought with them fresh ideas, new ways of organising and above an influx of new blood into a movement that has shown signs of growing tired and of not knowing what to do next.
They succeeded in doing something which some dockers have long wanted and that was to bring to this country some of the tactics which they have employed abroad. So the cranes at the Seaforth Container base were occupied as well as the 'rathouse' - the dockers name for the administration building located on the dock. This is a tactic used in Montreal with one crucial difference. There, they did it with the tacit agreement of the existing workforce. In Liverpool it was scabs and former work mates who have now turned their backs on their comrades who were the target - a hostile 'audience' indeed.
Of course there was a price to pay - the people who occupied the cranes and the rathouse were allowed off the dock without being arrested - a victory for the dockers - but it only made the OSD more mad since they had not been able to 'have a go' all weekend.
What do the 'reclaim the streets people' represent ? It was difficult for this correspondent to find this out. On the Saturday at the squat of the Custom House, I saw people who worked hard and in a collectively organised way to make something happen. I was fed, watered and entertained until six o'clock in the morning. It was a very enjoyable experience except that I cannot quite share their taste in music. My attempts to find out what 'they were about' were not entirely successful.
I did find out that many of them have a 'past' in the sense that many were former members of Leftist organisations. Several times I was told that 'we had to unite with the organised working class'. I pointed out that perhaps the 'organised' working class in this country at least, is now a declining minority of the population and the dockers had only got as far as they had by not allowing the 'organised' movement to dominate their struggle.
On Monday there was the attempt to take over the dock which I have already referred to and which has been adequately described elsewhere. The dockers at their regular mass meeting on Fridays were extremely critical of themselves for allowing the OSD to pick people off as they straggled back along the Dock Road back to the Custom House squat where about 300 of the reclaim the streets people were living. It may be lack of communication or lack of realisation that the OSD really meant business for having been led a merry dance for the last 3 days, either way the panic and strain on people as they went back was palpable, as the vans swooped on people like sharks round a shoal of seals.
The WoW realised quicker than the dockers what was needed [since they are past masters at running rings round the police with the children in the lead]. You may not approve of using children in this way but I am certain that more of the 'Reclaim the Streets' people would have been lifted if not for this attempt to protect them,
In the evening of course, it was obvious that the Custom House could not be held on to any longer so an improvised plan of accommodation was organised, [and where do you find 300 beds/floors at 1 hours notice ?] Sure enough of course, the OSD raided the Custom House but there were only a couple of Reclaim the Streets people there who had gone for a bit of sleep.
They got away by the simple expedient of throwing the power for the lighting. Since they knew the building better than the OSD, they were away before the police knew it. This may account for the viciousness of the OSD to those people they held after Monday evening. In my opinion torture is not too strong a word to describe what was inflicted on these people. The dockers will be taking over the legal side of things to ensure these people are defended and of course taking up complaints against the police [for all the good it will do.]
What did it all mean ?
Well only time will tell, but the fact of its happening is all important. The dockers today are truly a 'modern' movement, despite their past history - shortly many of them will have to deal with the provisions of the Governments' clampdown on the unemployed, the JSA. There are movements being organised around this and other issues. Whether in all these cases people can discover what a friend of mine calls 'commonality' remains to be seen. So long as these movements remain open to new ideas and ways of organising perhaps it is possible.
What is clear so far in this dispute is the absolute inability of the existing Left [and that includes some on the dispute committee] to have anything meaningful to say. It is to this side that I now wish to turn.
Dockers and the ICC
Because Brian, my comrade, and I are not in any political grouping nor identified with any tendency that can be labelled, it can mean that we find ourselves talking at times to 'all and sundry'. This can at times be quite wearing as you are obliged often to find out where people are coming from and then to attempt to outline a 'world view' all in the space of 5 minutes - which is of course impossible. It is one of the reasons why I write these reports, to create the space for some kind of dialogue. Often you cannot in a meeting, outline the sometimes very subtle points that need to be made about this dispute and of course since Brian and I defend the dockers, we are often charged with having views about the dispute which are not our own. We always say the dockers can speak for themselves.
But just occasionally we come across something which really rocks us. So it was that we found ourselves at a meeting in Manchester [just 'down the road' from Liverpool] organised by a group called 'Subversion' [contact - Robert Miller 106014.55@compuserve.com]. We were to talk on 'Casualisation', but as is the way of these things, inevitably the discussion turned to the dockers dispute. There, a speaker who identified himself as speaking for an organisation called the International Communist Current, gave us his organisation's considered opinion of the dockers dispute.
Which was that it was totally controlled by the union, and that this being the case, the dockers should call it a day. He also said that at some later stage the 'class struggle' would break out again as 'it' [the working class] was obliged to struggle, meanwhile anybody who attempts as I have done, to say anything about the dispute other than it is totally under the union's thumb, was to be 'denounced' [his word].
Now apart from seeing the working class as an abstraction ['it'], I cannot see myself being all that popular at the dockers mass meeting and saying they should all give up.
For a start it simply is not an option. The dockers having said NO, to the MDHC's plans for new working practices have challenged the boss's right to manage. The bosses have dismissed them. There is no offer on the table despite the T & G's open efforts to cook up a deal over the heads of the dockers. And while we are on about that - it was 31 August when Morris of the T & G announced that there must be 'negotiations without pre-conditions' [ie no unity between MDHC and Torside men] since then - nothing. Does this sound like a dispute utterly dominated by the unions ?
The dockers have rightly or wrongly said NO. Individually each one of them has rejected a cash offer of £25 000 to settle [that is abandon collective organisation]. Now while strategists on Central Committees or editors of Left papers can pontificate about whether the dispute can lead anywhere, the fact is the dockers are still in dispute, still on the picket line and they are not going to go away. But then that's workers for you - always going into struggle at the 'wrong' time, they never pick the 'best' moment. etc. etc.
Well, I'll let you into a secret - there NEVER is a 'best' time to pick a fight. As workers we don't have the luxury of such a choice. The dockers have in my opinion been wrong at certain points - they would admit it themselves. They may even fail to take into account things which seem blindingly obvious to us. But if they do, it is for a definite reason which we need to take into account, because stupid they are not. At least not so stupid as to pay any attention to the ICC.
If you wish to criticise the dockers and their struggle, then first of all you must UNDERSTAND its real basis and that may mean, as it has done for me, reexamining many of your previously held beliefs and ideas. Only when you have understood are you in a position to offer criticism and only through criticism can we learn how to move forward.
One of the issues which the dockers and other workers must face is the question of the existing movement which 'represents' them. Recently this has led to a questionning of the role of the International Transport workers Federation.
Dockers and the ITF
Those of you who saw my last two reports will be aware that the dockers had attempted to organise a follow up international conference of maritime and transport workers to the one they held in Liverpool in February. Now in my opinion this second conference was not a success. Firstly there were not as many delegates as at the last one, and certainly not from the key North European ports [in Germany and Holland] which there would need to be if any campaign were to get off the ground. If anything such as was done in Montreal were to be attempted it must be done with the active support of those on the dock.
Secondly it is quite clear [at least to me] that the International Transport Federation [ITF], alarmed at a potential rival organisation being created attempted to either block delegates going or made it clear that no rival organisation would be tolerated. The danger for the ITF was obvious since one of the driving forces for the international conference has been the dockers of Le Havre. Now French dockers of course are 'organised' by the CGT, which is anxious to build up an international of its own. Of course the situation is complicated by the fact that there is in France now a breakaway union Federation called 'SUD'. Since I am not up to date with French events perhaps others could explain what has been going on in France since December of last year ?
In any case, the Liverpool dockers attempt to create some space for themselves amongst all this international manoeuvring, has not been successful. The question remains what should be the dockers [and our] attitude to the ITF ?
So as not to let the 'discussion' get too far out of bounds, Richard Flint Communications Director of the ITF, has begun to answer this very question [speaking as they say in 'a personal capacity' of course] and being the thoroughly modern organisation that it is, the ITF has opened a web site for this express purpose. [itf@listbox.itf.org.uk]
In the process of course he deploys all the same arguments - the ITF is a purely coordinating body, its policies are set by each national affiliate [in the dockers case the T & G], it is a democratic organisation, you should fight for your ideas inside the organisation etc, etc. I've heard all this before and I'm not impressed. Jimmy Nolan 'won' the vote at its Executive where 'lay delegates' passed a resolution supporting the Liverpool dockers. What has this meant in practice ?
So for the moment the dockers are blocked to some extent from pursuing a more vigorous international policy. So what has happened in the UK with Morris threatening to abandon the dockers, is being repeated at an international level. A way must be found for the dockers to get round this - and 'denouncing' the ITF [like the ICC] is not going to make that task any easier.
Now all these questions and other fall onto the shoulders of the dockers committee, a committee which Bobby Moreton, one of its members, said did not want to have the 'mantle of leadership' thrust upon it. So now I want to have a look at this .
Dockers and 'Democratic Centralism'.
As I explained earlier, for my sins I talk to/with anyone and everyone about this dispute. So it was that I was involved in conversation with Dot Gibson who is the editor of the 'Dockers Charter' and a member of the WRP. She advanced the opinion that the dockers form of organisation represented 'democratic centralism' in practice. And that moreover this form should be held up to other workers as a positive model for them to emulate.
Now I am not sure if the dockers are practising a form of 'democratic centralism' and anyway I do not subscribe to such a notion - since I find the idea contradictory. But I do agree with holding their experience up to the light so that it can be looked at. I had hoped that the 'Dockers Charter' might turn into such a vehicle but for the moment it is not much more than a cheerleader for the dockers. However for the sake of argument let us examine their practice as though it was 'democratic centralism'.
Of the almost 500 dockers in dispute, there is an 'active core' of about 100 - 150. Another 150 or so turn up for regular picket duty [and remember this is early morning and evening pickets timed to affect rush hour traffic] So we might assume that perhaps 100 or so have got 'something sorted' to earn a bit of money on the side. These workers are 'represented' by a dispute committee of about 20 not all of whom are stewards. Although the stewards were elected before the dispute, it is almost a tradition on the dock that individual militants should 'come to the fore' when there is bother. The only mandate the dispute committee can claim is that earned every Friday at the mass meeting when the policy of continuing to dispute on the dispute committee's recommendation is put to the vote. Usually there are only two or three or a maximum of five dissenting votes.
So there you have it - the most perfectly developed 'democracy' centralised through a committee which hammers out its policies and has its political arguments entirely in private. On only two occasions can I recall the open mass meeting being closed and it being turned into a 'beef session'. Such meetings are like the dispute committees own meetings - very heated and tempers and opinions can be violently expressed. Many on the Left will say this is entirely natural - it is the price workers pay for 'unity of action'.
It is my opinion [and it is only an opinion] that this form of organisation, since it has survived almost unchanged from the days of the old [pre 1989] movement, is now acting as a brake on the further development of the dockers struggle.
I say this firstly because although the dockers have maintained a magnificent unity and self discipline - it is the unity and discipline that the old social democratic movement is so fond of. It is a unity of passivity and of the slowest member. The dockers as individuals will readily acknowledge the changed social reality that I have made so much a feature of my reports, but they show no collective recognition of it. As ever in practical ways they are way ahead of where their heads are - and I would suspect that one of the practical effects of the Reclaim the Streets people coming here is to widen that gap considerably.
Secondly their form of organisation has not adapted to the changed social basis of the struggle. One example will suffice. Despite the many changes that have transformed individuals - the dockers still find it impossible to elect or co-opt a member of the WoW onto their committee. Given the leading role many of the women have played this is not only a necessity, but perhaps the only way to take their struggle forward. This cannot be an oversight, since I know the question has been forcefully raised.
Why is this ? To answer this I am going to use a term that comes from the struggles that went on in Italy in the 70s and early 80s. I make no apologies for this because wherever the struggle is sharpest that is where we find the working class creating the intellectual tools to construct a solution to its problems. And I have not seen any other movement attempt to deal with todays' reality head on instead of retreating into ideology. It is to do with the composition of a new movement.
The old forms of organisation, ideas and attitudes came out of a working class that is fast disappearing. Just as the Bolsheviks grew out of a skilled, male working class which quite naturally saw in centralised and hierarchical forms of organisation the answer to its problems, so the 'mass workers' of the 70s gave rise to their own forms of organisation. Since the Keynesian state which allowed the 'mass worker' to appear is itself under attack, we should not be surprised if the forms that the 'mass worker' created, now begin to ossify and become sclerotic. 'Democratic centralism' if it ever really existed as more than an ideology now belongs to the past.
What I have said must be seen as part of a process whereby the dockers can become conscious of themselves and what their struggle represents, and I very much doubt if a vote at a Friday mass meeting where the proposition has been hammered out in advance behind closed doors, can help in this process.
Well I have well and truly trodden on everyone's toes so I'll save some of the other things I was going to say till later. As we say here I've run a new flag up the mast - let's see who salutes it.
DG
October 1996