Sky City Workers Win

Calling the CWG a political party is manipulative, dishonest, cynical, sectarian and petty. Speaking of partisan, I doubt Toby would be objecting if the group writing the article was an anarchist one and reflected anarchist organising theory.

Anyway as I've said to Scott of the CWG on more than one occasion, if you don't like the way things are done on Indymedia, join the relevant email list, argue for the changes you want to see and put in the work to make them happen. It's all very easy to whinge from the sidelines.

Toby has to put 'bureaucratic' in square brackets because he can't find the CWG saying anywhere that it wants to rebuild the unions on a bureaucratic basis. We have always said that we want to see the unions rebuilt as militant, democratic organisations, so that they can take on capitalism as well as individual capitalists.

That's why we praise the heroic job SFWU organisers and rank and file workers have done at Sky City over the past five years, but also criticise the union's continuing political support for the Labour Party and government.

And these aren't just academic points: we have a member at Sky City, and we've been involved in lots of SFWU actions over the years. We were on the Friday night picket that helped win the latest demands at Sky City.

If we really did want to see the unions rebuilt on a bureaucratic, status quo basis, we would keep quiet about the SFWU's alliance with labour, and about a host of other issues which we raise on indymedia, including the CTU's economic nationalism, the failure of the union movement to get fully involved in the seabed and foreshore hikoi, and the failure of the unions to organise strike action to stop NZ's involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (I seem to remember Toby applauding us here a few months back for our opposition to cabotage and economic nationalism...)

We can be sure that it is still possible to turn trade unions into revolutionary organisations - in Bolivia, the COB union confederation openly calls for the overthrow of the Mesa government and the establishment of a government based on workers' councils.

Armed COB members were at the heart of the mass
struggle that overthrew Mesa's predecessor, de Lozada, last year. The COB's position is the outcome of a long struggle from rank and file militants against more moderate union leaders.

But in NZ very low levels of class struggle,
relatively small worksites, and thin union coverage make it very difficult for the socialist left to win arguments inside the trade unions.

As Toby knows all too well, the politics of our union movement are still characterised by a left nationalism which sees an alliance with Labour and with local businesses as the way forward. Nor does our union movement have many of the democratic mechanisms which socialists would like to see. Our article on Sky City notes that the SFWU is one of the very few unions which allows delegates to formulate the demands which are negotiated with bosses.

So what do we do, as revolutionary socialists, in these conditions? I believe there are three choices, three strategies, available.

The first strategy is the one which Toby falsely
ascribes to the CWG - the strategy of rebuilding a
reformist, bureaucratic union movement, as a stagepost which must be passed before a revolutionatry union movement is possible.

The stagist strategy is promoted by a number of union leaders, perhaps most notably Bill Andersen of the NDU and Socialist Party of Aotearoa. I believe that many of the present leaders of the Alliance also embrace the strategy (prove me wrong John!).

The strength of the stagist strategy is its
recognition of the state of the thinking of the vast majority of Kiwi workers. We'd all like to imagine that only a layer of treacherous bureaucrats held back a mass of revolutionary workers, but the reality in NZ
is that the vast majority of workers probably hold
views to the right of most union officials. Only a
tiny minority are revolutionaries. Most still vote
Labour.

It can be argued, then, that the stagists are at least in tune with the consciousness of the workers they want to recruit to the unions. They're not going to frighten workers off with revolutionary phrasemongering! And many unionists who hold stagist views have done a good, even at times heroic and self-sacrificing job of unionising sites, so their strategy seems at times to work.

The flaw in the stagist strategy is that being
moderate often means embracing tactics and policies that prevent the rebirth of a strong union movement. For instance, stagists tend to favour an alliance with 'progressive' local business, as a way of building up
the strength of the unions in the short-term. Lobbying the government is preferred to head-on confrontation. Legal challenges are often preferred to direct action.

Often the weakness of the union and the moderate views of the membership are used as excuses for these tactics, but all too often such excuses become self-fulfilling prophecies.

And, in my opinion, lobbying, alliances with business and legalism are all unable to ensure the growth of a strong union movement in New Zealand. Our movement was built on the back of direct action, and the success of the SFWU at Sky City shows that it is out of struggle that gains can still be made. Legalese and lobbying can win little in an era when the NZ economy is effectively internationalised, courtesy of an increasingly aggressive imperialism fronted economically by ruthless MNCs.

A clear alternative to the stagist approach to
rebuilding the unions is so-called 'separatism' - that is, the building of independent revolutionary
unions outside the existing trade unions.

Brand-new unions with democratic structures and
militant direct action enshrined in their
constitutions would seem to offer safeguards against the problems which afflict the big trade unions. In New Zealand, a number of militant workers have been attracted to separatism.

Some years ago, a group of workers in Dunedin launched a branch of the Industrial Workers
of the World, an international 'separatist' union with its headquarters in Chicago. More recently, some members of UNITE's West Auckland local have discussed the possibility of making their branch almost autonomous, in an effort to avoid having to put up with some of the bureaucratic compromises of the union leadership.

The strength of separatism is its acknowledgement of the importance of democratic decision-making and militant direct action to the grwoth of the union movement. The weakness of separatism is its failure to acknowledge the attraction of the mass, reformist trade unions for most workers, and the potential to move big unions left and even transform them into democratic militant organisations.

Big unions can offer a range of resources to would-be members that tiny but pure unions can never dream of matching. More importantly, big unions can offer collective contracts to workers.
MECAs are even better, and not coincidentally are the frontline of industrial struggles today.

In non-revolutionary
situations at least, separatism tends to lead to the creation of 'pure' but very small organisations, which separate the most militant workers from the mass of workers in the moderate trade unions.

The CWG's strategy for rebuilding the unions tries to combine the positive insights of stagists and separatists, while avoiding the errors contained in both strategies.

We would like to see the rebuilding of the unions *and* the building of a militant, democratic
rank and file movement within the unions.

We must rebuild the union movement, but when we cannot win the movement as a whole to revolutionary politics we must make sure it has a strong rank and file movement pushing for direct action and keeping an eye on the union leadership.

This rank and file movement can be a link to the
militant struggles of the past - to 1913 and 1951 - and a model for the whole union movement in the future.

By staying inside the unions, the rank and file movement can avoid the isolation of the separatists; by openly pushing its socialist politics, it can hope to avoid the mistakes of the stagist socialists who disguise themselves as moderates.

There are already ripples of rank and file militancy in the NZ union movement. One example of a rank and file movement that occurs to me is the movement inside the National Distribution Union demanding that the union put the oppression of Maori on its agenda.

After the killing of Stephen Wallace in Waitara, CWG member Justin Taua helped organise a rank and file movement in the runanga of the NDU which supported the Wallace family's fight for justice and demanded that the union take a position in support of the family. After some heated arguments the NDU gave its support to the Wallace family, a fact which caused quite a stir in the wider union movement and in the media. Justin and other unionists - including social democrats, Maori nationalists, and members of other socialist groups - took a petition drawn up by the Wallace family around the country, and travelled to Waitara to agitate.

Sadly, the Wallace family is yet to see justice for the murder of their son. But the Wallace campaign did help prepare the NDU for the progressive role it has played in the struggle over the confiscation of the seabed and foreshore. The NDU's runanga was central to the platform that was drawn up by Maori trade unionists at the December conference of the CTU calling for union solidarity with the seabed and foreshore struggle. The NDU also helped organise an important mass meeting on the issue which helped build support for the protests at Waitangi and the hikoi itself. The NDU was one of the few unions which had delegates marching on the hikoi with union placards.

I'm not saying that the NDU's position on the seabed and foreshore was perfect - Justin had some critical words - but I do think that the rank and file movement in the union's runanga made a positive impact on the hikoi and on the wider union movement, which was far too quiet about the seabed and foreshore. Justin's work in the NDU - and, as I say, he has had a lot of help - is a good example of the way that socialists can help build rank and file movements inside mass trade unions without selling out their politics.

There are other examples I could use - the Anti Imperialist Coalition's successful attempt to get the Seafarers Union's Auckland section to become one of relatively few unions opposing the invasion of Afghanistan, and the election of revolutionary socialists to the national executive of UNITE are two that come to mind - but this post is long enough as it is. Let's rebuild the unions with a militant rank and file.
Keep us posted on the action in Dunedin Toby.

Complain about others posting up but free reign to anarchists?

Preach ultra-democracy, practice authority

"Complain about others posting up but free reign to anarchists?"

no, i never ever said that. i have no problems with others posting to indymedia WHATSOEVER.

what i am questioning is the decision of the indymedia editors to place the CWG article on the front page. i am not sure if this contravenes indymedia rules, but to me i think the front page of indymedia should be autonomous from political parties and any partisan article pushing some ideology.

i would complain about this if it came from the greens, alliance, the new maori party, or some anarchist group.

"Preach ultra-democracy, practice authority"

yeah right! so *suggesting* political party stuff should not be put on the front page is being authoritarian huh? to prove i am practising authority, you would need to have some concrete proof that i am coercing people on indymedia to force them to accept my point of view. which i am not, in any way. your argument is nothing but a dumb slur.

In the spirit of cabotage...

Consideration of foreign workers draws criticism
14 July 2004
By NATHAN BEAUMONT

A Timaru fishing company is considering employing foreign workers due to a severe shortage in the industry, a move that's horrified a local union representative.

Sanford has advertised for workers on its factory freezer trawlers. Positions include qualified deckhands, deckhands and factory general hands.

An advertisement ran in the Herald recently, but it is understood there were not enough quality applicants for the positions, hence the company's proposal to dip into overseas resources.

But the proposal has upset local Service and Food Workers Union organiser Judy Simeon, who said she would be annoyed if the fishing company employed foreign workers.

"For goodness sake, it's horrifying. We fight like hell to get good working conditions and they could go and do this. We will fight it on all fronts," she said.

Timaru is not the first fishing company to consider such a move. Others in Nelson, including Sanford, are also looking overseas to fill land-based processing jobs.

Nelson-based Service and Food Workers Union assistant national secretary Neville Donaldson said he is "totally opposed" to the moves and would take "appropriate action" if the proposal proceeded.

Sanford blamed the decision to search offshore for workers "due to expanding crew requirements".

Mrs Simeon said she was certain there were enough job seekers in the region who were capable of working at Sanfords.

"There's plenty of people around town to fill any vacancies they might have."

She represents more than 50 per cent of Sanford workers in Timaru and would be "horrified" if she was not consulted on the proposal.

An Immigration Service spokesperson said companies seeking overseas workers would need to demonstrate a shortage of New Zealand workers and show they had made adequate attempts to employ and train local people before an application could be approved.

Sanford's Timaru deepwater division manager Greg Johansson said he had to get permission from head office before speaking to the media. His request was turned down.

Managing director Eric Barratt refused to be interviewed, only saying "we are always looking for new crew".

But a Sanford employee said employing foreign workers was a "contentious" issue and it's unlikely management would discuss it in public.

In May this year Sanford announced the sale of its deep sea vessel the San Venturer, which resulted in the loss of 60 jobs.

The 64-metre hoki freezer vessel was sold to an overseas purchaser.

It is understood a number of those who lost their jobs on San Venturer are now employed on other fishing boats.

Timaru Fishing School course manager Colleen Brokenshire had "no idea" how many people had been through her course this year, but estimated 90 per cent ended up with jobs on fishing boats.

She did not want to comment on Sanford's proposal.

But earlier this year she was reported saying for the first time in three years they had not filled their youth course, but had a waiting list for their mature student course (18 and over).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/hlc/1,,82552~2970959a6010~,00.html

And again the bosses laugh at the 'Left', if they even give a fuck.

No Scott, i don't see any need for you to write a critique of my views. Simply becoz i don't have a strong point of view on unions, and my views are in constant flux and waver between, and combine, many different strategies.

If you wrote a critique of my views based on what you currently know you would undoubtedly make all sorts of assumptions and extrapolations that i don't hold. Which would piss me off, as you know.

if you wanna critique anarchist and left communist views on unions, maybe you could pick a few groups or zines, and then criticise them. eg. Anarchist Fed for ultra left, Workers Solidarity for working within unions, Rebel Worker for syndicalism etc etc.

the main reason why i said this article shouldn't be on the front page is becoz it sets a precedent for other stuff by groups that wanna push an ideological line, such as the Greens or whatever, to allow their stuff on the front page. I am not so much questioning the content of your article, as it is mainly a report (but there is still some spin in it -- nothing is objective anyway.) Maybe Indymedia needs some clear rules as to what can, and cant, be put on features. I get the feeling Indymedia people themselves dont know.

i think Scott privileges the party over the class. Instead of looking at what the working class is doing, you ask yourself: what can we do as revolutionaries? I think considerations of the class are always primary and considerations of revo organisation are always secondary -- or else it will most prob lead to elitism and irrelevance and substitutionism

just becoz we are living thru a period of working class "downturn", (even tho there has been quite a lot of protest in the last few years outside the workplace) that doesn't mean we need to privilege the role of a small minority to push their politics on to people (this relates the previous para). this is the Leninist fallacy. All Leninists seem to end up arguing, no matter what the situation, "what was missing from the situation was a highly disciplined vanguard party" with some magical party line to lead and control the supposedly unenlightened dumbo workers.

you forget to mention one important union strategy. That is, the left communist one, which rejects all unions as maintaining property, the wage system, the division of labour, the commodity form -- in short, capitalist social relations. instead, they emphasise informal and formal struggles by workers outside and against the unions eg. wildcats, theft, sabotage etc (and i am not saying i believe in this strategy) (and some left commies set up their own "separatist" unions as well, so no one groups position on things is monolithic)

there are other union strategies as well. how about guild socialism? how bout emphasising informal support groups or informal groups such as site committees within unions (or even outside unions)? or even workers enquiry projects? or a combination of these strategies? etc

Toby wrote:

'No Scott, i don't see any need for you to write a critique of my views. Simply becoz i don't have a strong point of view on unions, and my views are in constant flux'

But if you are making strong criticisms of the approach of other people to union work, then you have the obligation of putting forward an alternative. And, whether or not they piss you off, the people you are criticising have the right to reply to your criticisms.

If you were in a United Front or union meeting and you slammed somebody suggesting a strategy or tactic as having 'manipulative, dishonest' and so on politics, you'd be obliged to offer evidence, an alternative tactic, and the right of reply to that person. It shouldn't be any different here.

This is why I asked you (and I ask you again!) what union work you think should be done right now, instead of the work we're trying to do in the SFWU.

You say that

'Instead of looking at what the working class is doing, you ask yourself: what can we do as revolutionaries?'

But I preceded my question with an article and a long discussion about what the class, or a section of the class, seemed to me to be thinking and doing. My question was what can we do *in these conditions*, ie the conditions which I think exist in NZ in 2004.

And, of course, the whole context of this discussion is the building of a union by ordinary workers at Sky City, and attempts to replicate that elsewhere in NZ.

What the working class at Auckland's biggest worksite has been doing is building against huge odds a strong union branch, inside a union which is still tied to Labour and far from the militant democratic model we'd like to see unions take.

The strategy that the CWG advocates is intended as a response to this reality, which is quite contradictory. It could be wrong for all I know. We're not dogmatically attached to it. But you are obliged to offer an alternative, when you write it off so contemptuously.

If we agree that the building of the SFWU by ordinary workers is real, and not just a Leninoid projection, can we get round to discussing what to do about it?

Specifically, do you support the SFWU's membership drive (and obviously I think you should), and if you do how do you reconcile that with your opposition (opposition which I share) to the politics of the union tops?

Questions like this cut through all the barriers you want to put up between yourself and us, because they show that we're trying to deal with the same problems. We're on the same side.

I have no dogmatic objection to any of the theories and approaches you mention. What I'm saying is: let's test them, as far as we can. I think we need to take all of the stuff which you mention, and the a lot more besides, and then try to see if we can apply it. If we can't find any useful application for one or another theory or approach, then let's not discuss it.

You mention the left communist approach, which emphasises workers' action outside unions, and rejects unions like the SFWU as agents of capitalism. I would see this approach as contained by the strategy I called 'separatism'.
But the point is: do you favour it, as a response to the problems that SFWU workers face?

If so, can you explain how you are using it, or could imagine using it, and how we could use it up here? I personally think it would be disastrous, because even arguing for it would enrage a lot of the militant workers who have fought for years to build up the union at Sky City.

There have been wildcat actions at Sky City, indeed I reported one of them for thr@ll many moons ago, but I think you'd find the keenest wildcatters are also the keenest union members. In NZ, as far as I know, the vast majority of wildcats come from inside unions. Non-unionised workers rarely wildcat. The Finsec wildcat thr@ll reported a couple of years back came from recently unionised workers, and wouldn't have happened without unionisation. So I think don't think informal action outside the union is as 'outside' as it sometimes seems.

I am with you all the way, though, when you talk about 'site committees'.

You appear to have backed away from claiming that the CWG actually wants to build up union numbers before pushing for any radicalisation - that we have a 'stagist' approach. But you have claimed instead that even if we want to challenge the policies of the union tops, we don't want to challenge the structure of the unions.

But if you think that rank and file commitees based on site are a challenge to the structure of the unions, then your revised criticism of us will have to be thrown out of court. We are so keen on rank and file committees, strike committees, and solidarity committees that we've sounded like a broken record over the years.

For example, here's our take on the teachers' struggle in 2002:

'The PPTA (secondary teachers union) rank and file has made history by directing a number of wildcat strikes against its national leadership.For the second time, teachers have rejected proposed deals agreed by their leadership and the Labour/Alliance government.

The next step for teachers is to build on the spontaneous militancy of this action and to set up a permanent action committees to push for rank and file control of the union. The PPTA can take a lead from teachers unions that are at the forefront of major struggles in many parts of the world – Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, and Palestine.

The second step should be to generalise their rank and file action to the other teachers’ unions to form one big educational union. This would help to overcome the petty divisions over pay parity and replace the old craft union illusion that teachers are not really workers, with an ethos of strong industrial unionism.

The third step is to use this base to rebuild the labour movement by takingpolitical strike action in support of other unions like the Nurses and Carter-Holt workers at Kinleith.Only when the labour movement is rebuilt under the control of the rank and file will workers be in a position to fight for and win nation-wide campaigns such as for a shorter workweek without loss of pay.'
(Class Struggle May 2002)

You might be particularly interested in the CWG's call for rank and file committees to lead the struggle against Carter Holt Harvey during the Mainland Stevedoring scab struggle in 2000/2001.
After all, you - and I - were also giving advice to that struggle. And we were wrong, brother!

We argued for the left commie stuff you seem to be advocating now - act outside the union, etc We had the right intentions - we were disgusted with the CTU's softly softly approach to the struggle and to the sellouts of the WWU leadership which our on the spot correspondent Wullie described so vividly. But we had no realistic strategy. Here's the article, to jog your memory:
http://www.thrall.orcon.net.nz/17waterfront.html

The strength of the 'separatist' strategy described in thr@ll was its recognition of the inability of the leadership of either the CTU or the WWU to defeat CHH.

But, let's face it, rejecting the union was not something that the vast majority of WWU workers were prepared to do. The WWU represented them in negotiations, won them contracts, and provided a range of important services and resources to them. And wasn’t the enemy CHH also saying that they didn’t need the WWU? How could the WWU be so bad if those bastards wanted to undermine it? And wasn’t the WWU linked to the CTU, which had over 200,000 members and nationwide reach?

Looking back, I think that the CWG’s strategy for the anti-CHH struggle managed to avoid the hopeless stagist approach of the CTU tops as well as the unrealistic thr@ll approach.

Here's what the CWG said (and tried to do):

'A Winning Workers’ Campaign

A successful campaign needs to mobilise all CHH workers to stop production. Just as CHH has deliberately streamlined its business internationally to minimise disruptions in the supply, production and marketing of logs and pulp, CHH workers need to organise internationally to interrupt this process at the most vital points.

Stop work at the plants
Stop the flow of raw materials and finished products.
Mass pickets to prevent the use of scab labour
International union bans on CHH products.

To mount such a campaign, the rank and file members of the unions involved in dispute with CHH, including EPMU, NDU and WWU, must call an ‘all up’ meeting of the combined unions to plan a campaign and to elect delegates to a strike committee to organise and lead that campaign.'
(Class Struggle April 2001)

The CWG called for the formation of rank and file strike and solidarity committees inside the unions to run the anti-CHH campaign and provide solidarity to the WWU. By calling for the rank and file to control the struggle, the CWG avoided the CTU mistake of expecting bureaucrats to run a ‘grassroots struggle’.

But by recognising the reality of workers' loyalty to the big unions, and the potential of those unions, the CWG avoided the mistakes in the unrealistic article I had helped write for thr@ll.

OK, the CWG's approach didn't take off in the anti-CHH struggle. But I saw it work with my own eyes in the anti-war movement, after I became involved in the Anti Imperialist Coalition, a United Front of individuals and groups formed in Auckland after S 11 to try to organise working class direct action against the War of Terror.

One of the AIC’s early achievements was to get the Auckland branch of the Seafarers’ Union to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan which the Labour-Alliance government was throwing itself into. The Seafarers voted against the war after receiving an AIC delegation and hearing a speech from Steve Hieatt, an 88 year-old former seafarer who had been involved in every anti-war and anti-racism movement since the 40s.

Steve was only one of perhaps a dozen unionists who were active in the AIC. I was impressed with the way that they were active inside their unions, communicating with large numbers of non-revolutionary workers, yet still hadn’t had to sell out their politics. I wish you had been there Toby!

The AIC operated inside and outside the unions. We’d produce leaflets with draft union resolutions, and try to get rank and file members to follow the Seafarers’ lead, but we’d also organise our own independent actions, and try to attract rank and file union memebrs to them. And of course we tried to build up the numbers of unionists on the anti-war marches organsied by the wider peace movement.

The contrast between the AIC’s success with the Seafarers and other unions and thr@ll’s failure to engage with the WWU seemed quite striking to me, and seemed like a vindication of the approach that the CWG had advocated for the anti-CHH campaign.

I have to emphasise that the AIC wasn’t in any way a creature of the CWG. Steve Hieatt, for instance, was a veteran Maoist! When I saw the work that he and other self-proclaimed Leninists were doing I began to doubt some of the thr@ll rhetoric about the evils of ‘red fascists’, and realise that there are other determinants of political behaviour besides the labels activists give themselves (not that the –isms we label ourselves with are irrelevant, of course).

Which brings me to this endless and endlessly vague polemic against 'Leninism' which you are running. I honestly don't think that you have a handle on the term. I read (and enjoyed) your essay in On The Left, and saw what I take to be your official definition of Leninism in a footnote.

As I remember, you defined Leninism as a political movement where intellectuals lead workers in some sort of vanguard party, and you said that there were three types of Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism and Trotskyism.

This definition just doesn't stand up. For starters, how on earth can it cover Maoism, when the whole point of Maoism was that it theorised a party made up of *peasants*, not workers? Why do you think Mao had to claim that the Red Amry was a de facto working class, and that therefore his movement was working class-led?

He had very, very few workers in his party before it took power. His was a peasant movement led by intellectuals. And this is the pattern with Maoism, in the Third World which is its heartland. It is not possible to understand any important Maoist movement with your definition.

And how about the NZ communist tradition you are trying to understand in your essay? Do you honestly think the Communist Party of New Zealand was run by intellectuals? The party was notoriously anti-intelelctual for most if its history. So were most Stalinist parties. The British CP was widely known to have an unwritten rule that no intellectual could ever lead it. And how does your definition make sense of Third Period Stalinism from 1929-1933, when there was a massive campaign against intellectuals inside CPs everywhere? Were the CPs not Leninist for those four years? I could go on for a long time but I hope I've made my point.

Your definition of Leninism doesn't answer to reality, but it does allow you to dismiss Leninists as a bunch of scheming intellectuals out to hoodwink the honest militant workers, who ought to be anarchists or left communists.

In that disturbing post you made about Wgtn M1 you suggested that you didn't even consider yourself part of the left anymore, because we're all a bunch of scheming outsiders trying to exploit the class which you alone seem to understand:

'as for the issue of solidarity on the left, i don't care much for it. i dont care much for the orthodox left at all. i don't want to help state capitalists (greens, leninists and social democrats) promulgate their state capitalism. i'm for working class solidarity, solidarity outside of the control of the tiny sects and parties and unions who claim to represent the working class.'
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display_any/17482

Pretty scary huh? Your critique of the alleged sectarianism and vanguardism of Leninists has led you to a position that is more sectarian and vanguardist than any you could have been objecting to. Don't worry about the left, they're all crap. They don't understand the workers, but I do. I can see through it all with my X ray theory. And you reckon I'm the one who's become an 'authoritarian'!

I know I might seem to be pedantic going at such length but I'm trying to get you to see that you've constructed a nasty little myth about Leninism and about the whole left.

There is no magic key definition which allows you to dismiss any group which calls itself Leninist or anything else out of hand in the way that you do so often here. You can only judge a group through its real political actions. That's why we should be talking about strategy, and the SFWU! Let's get real.

yes, good news, Andrew the sacked union delegate has been reinstated. the international campaign may have played a part. however, i think in the end the two SFWU pickets and the all the publicity they created (colour photos in the ODT of all places), together with mediation, did it in the end. to me, a little bit of lame direct action (ie. noisy pickets on saturday nite) helped a lot. anyways, i think its best to hear from the people involved & not ppl like me -- i would like to do an interview with andrew about it

Scott the Trot wrote:
"But if you are making strong criticisms of the approach of other people to union work, then you have the obligation of putting forward an alternative. And, whether or not they piss you off, the people you are criticising have the right to reply to your criticisms."

for sure, i totally agree. what i was attempting to say was that my views aren't well developed at all, if you wanna critique a more substantive view then look at some anarchist and syndicalist and left commie groups overseas.

You say that
'Instead of looking at what the working class is doing, you ask yourself: what can we do as revolutionaries?'

"But I preceded my question with an article and a long discussion about what the class, or a section of the class, seemed to me to be thinking and doing. My question was what can we do *in these conditions*, ie the conditions which I think exist in NZ in 2004."

but you are only interested in what the working class is doing, as far as i can see, from a perspective of your party and how your party can relate to it. this approach to me seems instrumental and reified. your interested in the "dialectical" relationship between the party and the class, while i, as you well know, think the revolution is not a party affair...and that parties have been proven to be, when mass rebellions emerge, brakes upon working class self-activity the world over, including NZ (eg. the role of the SUP in suppressing the general strike of 1991).

"Specifically, do you support the SFWU's membership drive (and obviously I think you should), and if you do how do you reconcile that with your opposition (opposition which I share) to the politics of the union tops?"

well, i would "critically" support building a bureaucratic and reformist and capitalist union at any workplace such as Sky City or the Dunedin Casino, but only if workers themselves get concrete benefits out of it. I would remain implaccably and openly critical of any union leadership or bureaucracy, but still work with them if it was possible on certain issues or for certain benefits or actions. I would push for more autonomous direct action by rank and file union members, including formation of autonomous site committees. I would also be openly critical of unions as mediators of the working class, and say this openly, and not mention it once workers have passed thru some "stage" of disillusionment with Labour or union bureaucrats.

I would also encourage union members to take up dual membership with more radical unions if possible.

I would also encourage informal workplace support groups at places like Sky City outside of the SFWU.

So there you go. A combination of all strategies, but a firm rejection of the stagist one.

"We're on the same side."

No we're not. They are absolutely fundamental differences between us.

"I have no dogmatic objection to any of the theories and approaches you mention. What I'm saying is: let's test them, as far as we can."

for sure, that's a good formula. i suspect the experience of sky city cannot be easily generalised tho, because 1) its a huge worksite @) many workers there need to be trained, ie. they are semi skilled jobs, and not easily replaceable It's much harder to build unions in small workplaces with casualised unskilled labour, and it seems to me much of the NZ workforce is in this position.

which suggests to me: there is not one magical strategy for all workers at all sites, but a more flexible approach is needed.

"I personally think it [left commie strategy] would be disastrous, because even arguing for it would enrage a lot of the militant workers who have fought for years to build up the union at Sky City."

well i wouldn't put much emphasis on their strategy, i would reject most of it, except push when possible for extra-union activity and voice a clear opposition to capitalism and its mediatiors eg. union bureaucracies.

sure this would enrage some rank and file unionists. (but i would point out the contradictory nature of unions, in that the both reflect working class self activity and also repress it, so as to not present a one sided analysis of unions). however, so would criticising Labour enrage some unionists, or criticising left nationalist ideology would enrage most orthodox leftists in NZ as u well know!)

enraging some people will happen when you are honest and upfront and clearly voicing unpopular opinions or opinions few people would have heard. (you can see this in reaction to my posts on indymedia, but i guess this is in part a reaction to my style, which is brutal at times). i know it's an impractical strategy at the mo as well, given the lack of any revo consciousness amongst workers, but we aren't going to ever have the chance of getting rid of capitalism if we don't openly critique capitalism.

"You appear to have backed away from claiming that the CWG actually wants to build up union numbers before pushing for any radicalisation - that we have a 'stagist' approach. But you have claimed instead that even if we want to challenge the policies of the union tops, we don't want to challenge the structure of the unions."

i still think this criticism is largely valid. but i need more evidence b4 i can claim it. what do you exactly mean by strong democratic unions? what structure would they possess? would they be run by direct democracy or representative democracy? would officers be rotated (limited to short terms), only allowed to be voted in (say) three times max, and instantly recallable? (an example of this would be the BLF in Aussie in the 1970s, even if loadsa Maoists were dominant in the leadership of that union)

"But if you think that rank and file commitees based on site are a challenge to the structure of the unions, then your revised criticism of us will have to be thrown out of court."

nope, just revised. what are the purpose of these committees? to act autonomously, or as a popular stepping stone for the seizure of the union hierarchy, perhaps?

"But, let's face it, rejecting the union was not something that the vast majority of WWU workers were prepared to do."

rejecting the union as a whole is silly i agree. but rejecting the union leadership is a good step, and i think some unionists take this step everyday anyway.

"The CWG called for the formation of rank and file strike and solidarity committees inside the unions to run the anti-CHH campaign and provide solidarity to the WWU."

but this is precisely what the IWW did in dunedin, except outside the union. they became a support group, basically. and did a good job of it, i hear. you are partially right tho, coz a group inside the union would have definetely helped.

"But by recognising the reality of workers' loyalty to the big unions, and the potential of those unions, the CWG avoided the mistakes in the unrealistic article I had helped write for thr@ll."

all hail the empirically proven correct party line of the CWG! down with the Stalinist stagists! down with the impractical infantile anarchist ultra leftist adventurists!

"OK, the CWG's approach didn't take off in the anti-CHH struggle."

yup, but thanx for the CWG's enlightening advice anyway.

"The AIC operated inside and outside the unions. We’d produce leaflets with draft union resolutions, and try to get rank and file members to follow the Seafarers’ lead, but we’d also organise our own independent actions, and try to attract rank and file union memebrs to them."

and also spout a whole lot of nationalist Leninist stuff abt anti-imperialism in Iraq, uncritical support of the Iraqi resistance (no matter if it was capitalist or religious fundy), and a simplistic anti-Americanism which fetishised the US as the cause of the war, and not its real causes -- capitalism and the state.

"The contrast between the AIC’s success with the Seafarers and other unions and thr@ll’s failure to engage with the WWU seemed quite striking to me"

success of the AIC with seafarers? sounded like it became a sectarian nightmare to me that would have left many seafearers bemused to say the least. wasn't there some silly punch up between an AIC member and a seafearer that led to a nasty bitter split between maoists and trots in the AIC?

the IWW, in contrast, had a good working relationship with rank and file members of the WWU in dunedin and invercargill, and certainly no punch ups with WWU members. both IWW members and WWU members attempted to up the ante with pickets, sit downs and attempts to stop police wedges despite opposition from WWU union bureaucrats.

"I began to doubt some of the thr@ll rhetoric about the evils of ‘red fascists’"

we never talked of red fascists in thrall!

"and realise that there are other determinants of political behaviour besides the labels activists give themselves (not that the –isms we label ourselves with are irrelevant, of course)."

yup, Leninist ideology included (see next post)

Scott:
"Which brings me to this endless and endlessly vague polemic against 'Leninism' which you are running. I honestly don't think that you have a handle on the term"

huh? I agree that my defn in on the left was crap. as you argue. here is a better defn of Leninism:

the following main points may be recognised as characteristics of Leninism:

1. Leninism is a nationalistic doctrine. Originally and essentially conceived to solve a national problem, it was later elevated to a theory and practice of international scope and to a general doctrine. Its nationalistic character comes to light also in its position on the struggle for national independence of suppressed nations.

2. Leninism is an authoritarian system. The peak of the social pyramid is the most important and determining point. Authority is realized in the all-powerful person. In the leader myth the bourgeois personality ideal celebrates its highest triumphs.

3. Organisationally, Leninism is highly centralistic. The central committee has responsibility for all initiative, leadership, instruction, commands. As in the bourgeois state, the leading members of the organization play the role of the bourgeoisie; the sole role of the workers is to obey orders.

4. Leninism represents a militant power policy. Exclusively interested in political power, it is no different from the forms of rule in the traditional bourgeois sense. Even in the organization proper there is no self-determination by the members. The army serves the party as the great example of organization.

5. Leninism is dictatorship. Working with brute force and terroristic measures, it directs all its functions toward the suppression of all non-Leninist institutions and opinions. Its "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a bureaucracy or a single person.

6. Leninism is a mechanistic method. It aspires to the automatic co-ordination, the technically secured conformity, and the most efficient totalitarianism as a goal of social order. The centralistically "planned" economy consciously confuses technical-organizational problems with socio-economic questions.

7. The social structure of Leninism is of a bourgeois nature. It does not abolish the wage system and refuses proletarian self-determination over the products of labour. It remains therewith fundamentally within the class frame of the bourgeois social order. Capitalism is perpetuated.

8. Leninism is a revolutionary element only in the frame of the bourgeois revolution. Unable to realize the soviet system, it is thereby unable to transform essentially the structure of bourgeois society and its economy. It establishes not socialism but state capitalism.

9. Leninism is not a bridge leading eventually into the socialist society. Without the soviet system, without the total radical revolution of humans and things, it cannot fulfil the most essential of all communist demands, which is to end the capitalist human-self-alienation. It represents the last stage of bourgeois society and not the first step towards a new society.

Leninism means state capitalism, nationalism, authoritarianism, centralism (which is of necessity incompatible with democracy, leader dictatorship and personality cults, power policies, terror-rule, mechanistic dynamics, inability to communise etc etc

According to Lenin's revolutionary method, the leaders appear as the head of the masses. Possessing the proper revolutionary schooling, they are able to understand situations and direct and command the fighting forces. They are professional revolutionists, the generals of the great civilian army. They are superior in knowledge and initiative to workers. This distinction between head and body, intellectuals and masses, officers, and privates corresponds to the duality of class society, to the bourgeois social order. One class is educated to rule; the other to be ruled. Out of this old class formula resulted Lenin's party concept. His organisation is only a replica of bourgeois reality. His revolution is objectively determined by the forces that create a social order incorporating these class relations, regardless of the subjective goals accompanying this process.

Whoever wants to have a bourgeois order will find in the divorce of leader and masses, the advance guard and working class, the right strategical preparation for revolution. The more intelligent, schooled, and superior is the leadership and the more disciplined and obedient are the masses, the more chances such a revolution will have to succeed. In aspiring to the bourgeois revolution in Russia, Lenin's party was most appropriate to his goal.

For sure, Leninism is more complex than this. it does, to some extent, reflect the wishes of some workers in mass struggles, and workers have attempted to use Leninist parties for their own ends. But the very bourgeois and militaristic organisation of Leninism parties means that this, in the end is impossible, and Leninism has historically wiped out working class self-activity eg. the Soviets in Russia after 1917.

to align yourself with Leninism, in the end, is to align yourself with not only the most authoritarian leftist ideology but also the brutal suppression of anti capitalist tendencies within the working class.

my view is not vanguardist. it is fundamentally anti-vanguardist. i do not claim to represent anyone, unlike the elitist notions of the orthodox left including Leninism. i want an end to representation and leadership. i do not want to lead anyone. i do not want to have power over anyone. i want to change the world without taking power, without any elite taking power, regardless of their ideology (anarchist or otherwise).

i do not claim to have any answers at all. i make no claim to really know what the working class wants -- that is up to workers themselves, not me. but i do find Leninists very patronising in their attitude to workers, who view us (workers) as objects to be instructed or enlightened (as with the schoolmasterish tone of Scott's posts). i know that the failures of state socialism, ie. the ORTHODOX left, including Leninism, need to be rejected. we need to go beyond the orthodox left, not rebuild it as some leninists suggest.

the orthodox left has simply failed historically. from there, we need to experiment to find out what is best, we need to experiment with different theories that have not been really tried out yet. maybe anti statist communism is. maybe parecon is. maybe collectivism. maybe syndicalism. maybe a combination of the above. i dunno...

Earthbound mammal thinks that the gains of Sky City workers are a joke. He also finds that his head hurts when he tries to think about left-wing politics. He should go and tell that to them personally - the response he'd get would put him on a major learning curve.

Toby's response is much more interesting. I can't reply to the Leninism defintion here, but in response to the other points:

'well, i would "critically" support building a bureaucratic and reformist and capitalist union at any workplace such as Sky City or the Dunedin Casino, but only if workers themselves get concrete benefits out of it. I would remain implaccably and openly critical of any union leadership or bureaucracy, but still work with them if it was possible on certain issues or for certain benefits or actions. I would push for more autonomous direct action by rank and file union members, including formation of autonomous site committees. I would also be openly critical of unions as mediators of the working class, and say this openly, and not mention it once workers have passed thru some "stage" of disillusionment with Labour or union bureaucrats.'

I agree! And I think this is pretty much what we are saying up here. I just wish we didn't have to go through some much preliminary skirmishing to get to this point. Back at school I remember mates who used to punch me in the arm, as a way of saying hello. It was kind of stupid and macho, but you had to punch them back. Too often political discussion between groups like the CWG and anarchists seem to have to follow the same pattern!

'success of the AIC with seafarers? sounded like it became a sectarian nightmare to me that would have left many seafearers bemused to say the least. wasn't there some silly punch up between an AIC member and a seafearer that led to a nasty bitter split between maoists and trots in the AIC?'

Well, you can learn from the conflict as well as the cooperation in UFs. One ex-seafarer did hit an AIC member while we were leafleting a meeting of theirs once, but the bloke who threw the punch had just been shouting racist abuse of Iraqis - it was the leadup to the invasion and he was saying that they deserved it because of S 11 and he hoped the US would bomb the hell out of them and so on - and I noticed nobody sprang to his defence when he got punched back by another AIC member.

The AIC kept in touch with the seafarers - for instance, when we set up DAWA (Direct Anti War Action, a broader UF), we got two delegates from the Seafarers to our founding meeting (I think Rob G from your neck of the woods was also there). They kept in touch with us - through the guy who had got punched, actually - and we worked together to produce a leaflet which was distributed by a number (not sure how many) of Seafarers delegates on ships working NZ coastal waters.

I think I posted it on a couple of e lists at the time, it called for strike action to stop the war, and in particular stop the movement of NZ forces and material to the war zone. DAWA itself was far bigger than the AIC had been before the split - we were getting 30-40 people to planning meetings during the war - though it did go belly up after the fall of Baghdad (disillusionment etc amongst many of the members). But the point is that it'd be impossible to claim that the Seafarers all rejected the AIC, or that the AIC died after that incident, so critiques of the AIC have to go deeper.

'and also spout a whole lot of nationalist Leninist stuff abt anti-imperialism in Iraq, uncritical support of the Iraqi resistance (no matter if it was capitalist or religious fundy), and a simplistic anti-Americanism which fetishised the US as the cause of the war, and not its real causes -- capitalism and the state.'

Again you are being dogmatic and not looking at the more complex reality. The AIC/DAWA as a whole didn't have a position that detailed on Iraq. Different people had different opinions. The CWG paper said 'Back Iraq, Beat Bush, Sideline Saddam!' This is hardly the same thing as giving political support to Baathism or religious fundamentalism. I think this is another situation where you are unable to apply your politics in practice unless you become a bit more subtle. In Auckland Iraqis were demonstratig chanting 'Victory to Iraq, no to Saddam!' There was no contradiction there for them, and many of them were exiles driven out by Saddam. So much for out of touch Trots.

The irony is that we have actually been involved in efforts to get solidarity going with the worker Communist Party of Iraq, a group which rejects Leninism and shares your views of the war. If we were as dogmatic as you make out, we wouldn't have a bar of the WCPI.

Here's an excerpt from our defence of them against some leftists who wanted to exclude them from anti-war actions because they called for the overthrow of the Iraqi and Iranian regimes in the leadup to the invasion:

'You try to use Trotsky's hypothetical war between Brazil and Britain to criticise the WCPI's call for the overthrow of the Iranian
theocracy and (in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq) the regime of Saddam, but nothing Trotsky said can be used to justify political

support for either regime.

Using a hypothetical extreme example to challenge his audience,

Trotsky said that in the event of a war between near-fascist Brazil

and bourgeois democratic Britain workers around the world should

prefer the military victory of Brazil, because Brazil was a

semi-colonial country whose government was ultimately a product of

imperialism, Britain was the world's number one imperialist power,

and a victory for Brazil would weaken imperialism.

But Trotsky never for a moment suggested that workers anywhere should give a modicum of political support to the government of Brazil, or
to any other national bourgeois government or party anywhere in the semi-colonial world. Trotsky said that workers should aim their guns
in the same direction as the Brazilian bourgeoisie so that they could
defeat this bourgeoisie in the process of defeating imperialism.

Defeating the imperialists and defeating the local capitalists were not two distinct 'stages' - they were telescoped into a single task.

Trotsky's whole politics was built on his theory of combined and uneven development, which had as one of its corollaries the argument that capitalist classes in the colonial and semi-colonial world were too weak to stand up to imperialism. Colonies and semi-colonies could
only be broken out of the circuit of global capitalism by socialist revolution. Brazil vs Britain was a hypothetical case, but Trotsky and his followers put his argument into practice during both the Russian and Spanish revolutions.

In 1917, for instance, Trotsky refused to give any political support to the national bourgeois Kerensky government established after the
February revolution (before the war Russia was regarded by the Bolsheviks as an imperialist country, but by 1917 it was surely effectively a semi-colony of the West).

When White Russians in the service of imperialism attempted a coup to get rid of Kerensky's government the Bolsheviks gave Kerensky military support -pointed their guns in the same direction as the Kerensky government's - without abandoning their call for the overthrow of this government by the workers. Only months after
crushing the White coup they crushed Kerensky's government and put
the soviets into power.

I'm sorry to go on at such length about Trotsky and 1917, but I think it's important that Trotsky's strategy of permanent revolution is distinguished from the strategy which you appear to support and which he rejected, which is that of political support for and a political
alliance with national bourgeois parties and governments

The WCPI is right to call for the overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran by the workers of Iran. The WCPI is talking, after all, about a
brutal dictatorship that condemns half its population to a medieval
existence as third-class citizens, and has locked up or simply executed tens of thousands of leftists and trade unionists. Who would want to support the continued existence of such a regime?

Even the Stalinist left, which was deeply implicated in the coming to power of the Islamists, now calls for the overthrow of the regime.

Third Worldist politics have led you to adopt a position which no leftist organisation inside the real Third World country of Iran
would today touch with a barge pole.

The situation is no different when we turn to Iraq. In my experience,
the Iraqis living in Auckland simultaneously wanted to overthrow
Saddam and opposed the US invasion. There was no contradiction here –
it was well-understood that US imperialism had put Saddam into power
in the first place, and had kept him in power by collaborating with
him to defeat the workers' uprisings that believe it or not saw
soviets established in parts of Iraq after the First Gulf War. It was
also understood that Saddam's rotting regime was completely incapable
of stopping the US - only the mobilisation of the people who despised
Saddam could defeat the US.

Where the WCPI goes wrong is in refusing to give any support at all
to Third World capitalists resisting imperialism militarily. I quote
from a recent CWG leaflet:

"The Worker-Communist Party condemns Islamist and Baathist fighters against the US as no better than the US itself. But by taking this attitude, the Party turns its back on tens of thousands of young workers who fight under the leadership of local capitalists. If US troops are shooting into a crowd, the people in the crowd have the
right to shoot back, even if they happen to be Muslims. If a US chopper is shooting up an Iraqi village, an Iraqi has the right to
shoot it down, even if he belongs to the Baath Party. The rank and
file of the resistance has to be won from its rotten leadership, not condemned for the policies of that leadership.

The bankruptcy of the Worker Communist Party’s position was shown after the US invasion in March – the Party refused to support the

resistance to invasion and, desperate for some sort of ‘solution’,
nded up calling on the UN to intervene to save Iraq."

I agree with you that the WCPI has a too-extreme attitude to Muslim groups in the anti-war movement, but I think you are quite wrong when
you argue that the flaws in the WCPI's position 'exemplify why we must discard the notion of a central command somewhere in an

'international' party or amalgam of parties'.

On the contrary, the WCPI is a screaming example of the need for an international party which can bring comrades from different regions together to analyse and criticise each other's positions.

The WCPI is a prisoner of Iraqi history: it was formed as a reaction to the stagist politics of the Stalinist Iraqi Communist Party, but
its founders never got a handle on the reasons for the political
degeneracy of the ICP. In the 1970s they saw the ICP (encouraged by Moscow, Castro etc) go into government with Saddam, and were rightly disgusted. But they wrongly concluded that the ICP's Stalinist
politics of political alliances with the national bourgeoisie was the
logical consequence of Leninism and 1917, and so they threw Bolshevism out with the bathwater and went for ultra-leftism instead.

Because of the isolation of Iraq and the immense power of the
CP-Moscow propaganda machine, the WCPI's founders never had access
to the original rejection of stagism which Lenin and Trotsky made in
1917. They equated Stalinism and Bolshevism. The WCPI went into exile in Western countries where the self-described Trotskyist groups had
mostly long since abandoned the theory of permanent revolution (it's
o coincidence the WCPI is polemicising against a Cliffite group).

It's not surprising the exiles didn't see much to alter their
impression of Bolshevism.
But the WCPI's mistakes could potentially have been avoided by the criticism of groups that were still loyal to the politics of 1917. Now the WCPI's membership in the global anti-war movement provides the ideal opportunity for us to
simultaneously work with them and criticise them in an effort to
improve their politics. That's the idea behind our attempt to get
international solidarity with the WCPI and the organisations it has
founded going.

At the end of the day, the WCPI and the work it is doing in Iraq are surely important enough to deserve solidarity and assistance, even if the arguments get nowhere.Full letter at http://www.geocities.com/communistworker/cs53.html
(scroll down)

But I certainly don't want to use the AIC/DAWA to run down the IWW. I had the greatest respect for Wullie and the others I met (not many) in the IWW. But I do think - and I think we might agree on this - that it was a mistake to try to build seperately outside the unions, for the reasons that I gave above. Certainly though there was no question that they had respect on the picket lines in 2000/2001.

Where did you dig that grumpy letter up from?!? Do you think it says much of substance? One of the problems with the defintions of Leninism you offer and I offered!! - is that they lump together very different groups and traditions. Since we were talking about the anti-CHH campaign of 2000-2001, it'd be worth comparing what the CWG and the SWO were saying on that issue.

As I remember the SWO took up Chris Trotter's call for the CTU to lead 'a grassroots campaign from the top', or words very similar to that. The CWG was like thr@ll very critical of this perspective, because it felt that the CTU tops were incapable of running such a campaign. Hence the call for rank and file committees. You will consistently find important differences if you look at what the CWG and the SW tradition say on important issues.

If you look into the SW tradition you'll also see that they have from the start rejected the key Trot theories of permanent revolution, definition of the USSR and its allies as degenerated workers' states, and the building of a fourth (of fifth!) international. Hence it doesn't make much sense to call them Trots - they certainly don't talk about themselves using the term. Not that I would today want to run down or write off the SWs in the sectarian manner of the grumpy letter and your own grumpy posts on Leninists! Don Franks on this website is a good example of the good work that activists from the SW tradition do.

I agree that the discussion has gotten divorced from the concrete situation at Sky City and other SFWU sites.

I find the arguments with Toby interesting but it'd probably be better to have them somewhere else - it'd be good is this site had a section set aside for the 'heavier' discussions, maybe with a warning attached!

Agree completely with you about setting up a United Front. On the weekend I caught up with a few other members of UNITE in Auckland, some of whom were on the picket line at Sky City and all of whom are interested in what's going on in the SI.

I have proposed a joint leaflet on the SFWU. I suggested to Unite members that it could be an open letter from our union to theirs, but there's no reason why it couldn't come from outside Unite too. If enough people outside Auckland were interested we could distribute this nationwide.

And what about the idea of getting Auckalnd unionists to go down to unionise the casino at Hamilton for the SFWU? The SFWU could copy Unite's fast food campaign and try to get people outside the union to go on a recruting drive.

That would seem to be the logical next target if we're going to get coverage of all the sites in preparation for a MECA. I guess in the SI you've got Queenstown waiting to be unionised after Dunedin?

But of course we still have to work out what would go in the leaflet, and that's where we do still have to have a little bit of analysis -or 'philosophical navel gazing' if you want to call it that.

Take for instance your point about the danger of Brash getting elected - I fully agree that the guy is scary. But should Brash or Labour be the main enemy at the moment? As we mentioned in the above article, fear of Brash is tying the SFWU closer to Labour. The SFWU leadership organised anti-Brash protests, which is great, but they are using Brash to make Labour look good.

The trouble with this is that Labour is implementing some of Brash's policies in a series of measured 'pre emptive strikes' to try to stall the rise of the Nats - think of the S and F legislation, and the Jobs Jolt, for instances.

The unions were overall very muted on the S and F and almost silent on the JJ, because they are scared to rock the boat with Labour. Result is that the Nats agenda is not being opposed properly by the unions as it is installed piece by piece. Brashism without Brash!

Behind all of this IMHO is the figure of US imperialism: Brash was installed in a leadership coup plotted by the section of the NZ capitalist class closest to the US, he shuttles back and forth to DC and Canberra for instructions, and his Finance Minister in waiting John Key not coincidentally cut his teeth with a US MNC and retains extensive contacts in the US.

And Labour is no more able to resist the pressure of imperialism than the Nats, as is shown by its liberalising of investment laws and quest for a free trade deal. So I think that any writing from the left on issues facing the SFWU has to avoid presenting Labour as a lesser evil to the Nats.

And I think that the key to understanding why Labour is doing the Nats' work is the theory of imperialism, which was developed by that silly old codger Lenin.

Not that I want to talk about or even mention Lenin in a leaflet written to the SFWU - I'm just trying to explain why I think the ideas of people like Lenin are not irrelevant to the working-out of what to do in a situation like this. We do need theory to guide practice.

We're having a Unite and possibly a CWG meeting on the weekend where hopefully we'll discuss the SFWU campaigns and how we might be able to get more involved. If anyone wants to find out more they can e mail me at shamresearch@yahoo.co.nz

Of course there's nothing stopping other people in other places getting their own stuff going and sending it up to us. I'm Unite WA and the CWG would be happy to circulate info about what you're up to. People I've spoken to up here have been really interested in the Dunedin campaign.

You sniveling little lefties are pathetic. Socialism/Communism has NEVER worked anywhere and pedalling in NZ is not going to get you anywhere.

Try working hard instead of moaning and maybe you will get where Evan Davies is. He deserves his salary do you?