Sectarians With Placards?

As anyone who follows the blogland niche the revolutionary left has carved out for itself knows by now, the Socialist Workers' Party has expelled three leading and well known cadre from their organisation. According to the chatter over at Socialist Unity and Liam MacUaid, their "crime" was to take the SWP's Respect turn a little too seriously. It seems when the SWP makes a strategic decision its members shouldn't really throw themselves wholeheartedly into that particular struggle, despite being exhorted to do so by Socialist Worker and Party Notes.

The SU comments box on the expulsions have been overflowing with analysis and speculation, and of course you can expect the Weekly Worker to add much grist to the mill this Thursday. But you needn't be Mystic Meg to have seen this coming. Any attempt at building a broad left alternative that can reach beyond the confines of the sect ghetto must have democracy, accountability and openness at its heart, nor should any of its component parts hide or water down their politics. Unfortunately for the SWP, this is how it's not gone about building Respect, and now their inept leadership are reaping the whirlwind of their folly.

'Lacan's' contribution at SU blog (msg#74) notes "in order to be able to move the SWP membership out, en bloc, the CC needs to act now to delegitimise those people who might act as figureheads for a ’stay-and-fight’ tendency within the SWP". Unfortunately for the SWP their beheading of this opposition is far from neat. Not only have the three expelled comrades in question, Nick Wrack, Kevin Ovenden, and Rob Hoveman 'gone native', but whole swathes of the SWP's activist base has as well. In Birmingham for example, despite the controversy over local candidate selection, Respect has built very real roots among some of the most oppressed sections of our class - and those who put in a good deal of the work are, (often experienced and long-standing) members of the SWP. It would be difficult to believe the SWP could disengage with Respect without tearing apart its organisation in the second city. Similar observations could be made concerning Michael Lavalette in Preston, and would also no doubt apply to the couple of Respect councillors that have since been recruited directly to the SWP.

Whether the SWP stays or goes remains to be seen. But what of the non-SWP component of Respect? Again, the SWP faces a bind. Long gone are the days when irksome critics could be expelled from the organisation and fade into obscurity. Now it is faced with the situation whereby every disciplinary measure, every expulsion, strengthens the hand of Galloway and anyone else who wants Respect to evolve away from the stunted on-off united front "of a special type". But herein lies the problem. It was Galloway who tore down the wallpaper and exposed the cracks, but his critique of the SWP's stewardship - though in many ways correct - are fundamentally about centralising Respect under his and his allies control. All that really unites the group around Galloway and Yaqoob with the pro-democracy independents, and the loose network around Socialist Unity is opposition to the SWP's control-freakery. If you subtract it from the equation, what have you left? Two groups with competing and opposed visions for Respect. Nevertheless, comrades are quite rightly taking the opportunity afforded by the schism to put forward an attractive, democratic alternative.

What does this mean for those of us outside? It reconfirms for all of us who are wary of the SWP that once again its leadership cannot be trusted to work with other socialists in a comradely and cooperative way. Again, it shows its main preoccupation is preserving its organisational, as opposed to political, integrity. This is hardly news for anyone who's been around the left for a while, but it might be a bit much for those SWP comrades left high and dry by the turn away from Respect. That good socialist activists are likely to drop out because of this debacle is something no one on the left should be celebrating.

But what of comrades with no relationship to Respect? What of those of us on the Labour left, the Socialist Party, the 57 varieties, and of no fixed abode? If the SWP turns inwards and goes down a petty, ultra-left 'ourselves alone' road, in the struggles ahead it could play a more counter-productive role than it does at the moment, as more and more of its interventions are subordinated to the need to build 'The Party'. This is a recipe for an annoying headache all round. It is also possible the Stop the War Coalition could come unstuck - don't be too surprised if the October 27 conference sees some SWP/Galloway shadow boxing.

Then there's the question of a new party. If over the next few years more unions start breaking organisationally from Labour and joining those already outside its formal structures, the need for a political voice is ever more starkly posed. Chances are Respect will feed into this process in some way, as will the far left and some of the Labour left, but a question mark hangs over the SWP. They could hinder the process, or stand aloof from it, but judging by Respect's balance sheet, the least likely outcome would be for it to engage constructively.

Burslem Postal Workers on the March

Last Saturday morning, Brother P and Brother S joined a march in support of striking posties in Burslem in north Staffordshire, which had been organised by the CWU with support and encouragement from Stoke Socialist Party. About 100 marchers assembled outside the sorting office where Party members manned a stall. Around 10.00 am the procession marched off in the autumn sunshine up the hill, banners and placards waving, towards Hanley where a rally had been planned. Passing motorists sounded their horns in solidarity, and CWU pickets enthusiastically leafleted everybody in the vicinity. There was a great atmosphere. It was serious but good-natured, and you could sense that people felt good that they were taking a stand against vicious attacks on their terms and conditions of employment. At about 11.00 we arrived in the centre of Hanley where interested observers joined the crowd.

Jim Cessford, a Unison stalwart, gave the first address, calling for united action across the public sector. Brother Mick, a striking postie, thanked those present for their ‘magnificent support’ and spoke of the problems being faced by union reps at Burslem. The president of North Staffs Trade Council, Jason Hill of the NUT, spoke of the need to form an alliance of public sector trade unionists under the banner of North Staffs TUC. Comrade Judy of Coventry SP said that ‘workers are being hammered whatever their industry’ and that ‘it was a disgrace that the TUC has not called for national strike action’. Andy Day of the National Pensioners’ Convention (which had provided a contingent on the march) explained that attacks on pensions are a disaster for workers in general as companies abandon final salary schemes and take contributions holidays. John Ellis from the PCS spoke of job losses in the civil service and accused the government of ‘destroying a decent welfare society’, and called on CWU members to support the PCS in their expected forthcoming industrial action. A CWU official said he was ‘really proud’ that 96% of CWU members had answered the call for industrial action. Another speaker from the CWU described recent suspensions of union activists across the country as an attempt to ‘soften up the workers’.

Andy Bentley of Stoke Socialist Party reported that the had written to Post Office management informing them that local activists had collected 10,000 signatures protesting at the imminent transfer of Hanley Post Office to WH Smith and offering to deliver the petition. Unsurprisingly, he has received no reply! Andy described the Burslem postal workers as ‘a shining beacon’. Jim Cessford closed the rally saying that the postal workers had struck first, the civil servants were striking second, and that hopefully the local government workers would strike third! Jim predicted that the government could face a Winter of Discontent reminiscent of the 1970s.

Afterwards about half of the march sojourned to Fat Cat's for party-supplied butties and crisps, and listen to our regional secretary, Dave Griffiths, tease out some of the political lessons of the dispute. He demonstrated that only a socialist approach to what's happening at Royal Mail can explain the nature of the attacks on the workforce, and put forward the strategy for defeating them.

Stoke March to Defend Postal Services

I know it's been a while, but what better way to breathe life back into this blog than with a call to action. If you're in the West Mids, you really should get yourself along to this. Some background to the march can be read here.


March to Defend Postal Services

Saturday 6th October

Assemble 10am at Burslem Delivery Office, Scotia Road, Burslem

March to Rally in Fountain Square, Hanley at 11:30am

No to cuts in our services

Keep the postal service a public service

Support the postal workers fight


Bring your banners and placards!

All Welcome

Socialist Party National Trade Union Meeting

Being a member of Stoke Socialist Party, last Saturday I attended the above event at Conway Hall in London that attracted a good turnout from comrades from a wide range of unions. Bill Mullins, the Socialist Party’s Industrial Organiser, opened the meeting with some comments on the current state of the UK economy. Bill painted a picture of rising profits but a slowdown in the growth of wages, especially in the public sector, in respect of which he posed the question - what price a united struggle?. Bill added that it looked that the PCS were isolated until the recent massive show of loyalty by the POA, although he also praised the fighting spirit of the RMT. There followed a series of contributions from the floor, and I cannot list them all here, so I shall briefly mention some that particularly caught my attention.

A comrade from the Visteon car plant in Swansea reported that ‘for every two steps that management are able to go forward, we make them take a step back’ which struck me as a realistic assessment of the defensive but never more necessary nature of trade unionism in this country at the moment. A comrade from the CWU in Stoke recounted some horror stories about the use of agency staff in the Royal Mail, including tales of undelivered mail being left in bags in the street! Another from Unison in Huddersfield reported on various local struggles, and that an attempt to close three workplace nurseries was defeated after activists organised 2 demonstrations, 3 lobbies and a petition of 6000 names. A comrade from the NUT complained of a leadership that ‘talks a good fight but does not deliver’ and another from the RMT complained that there was ‘very little political culture in the union’. An activist from Unite reported that he had ‘more chance of contacting the dead than his regional industrial organiser’. A contributor from Scotland stated that the National Shop Stewards Network was a ‘chance to bring workers in Scotland back to politics’. A comrade from the PCS said that it was important to take a clear position as to what organising means and to the party’s view on organising. An activist from Unison in Salford reported that the Manchester Unity Stewards group was reaching out to people in the PCS, NUT and CWU and were hoping to link into the regional Shop Stewards Network. A comrade from the PCS in Wales said that the biggest problem was ‘the bureaucracy in post’.

We then took a break for lunch and on our return Bill Mullins spoke a little about anti-union laws and (if my memory serves me correct) suggested that recent events in the POA dispute showed that the law is not as effective as is sometimes feared. Bill also warned that the provisions in the so-called Trade Union Freedom Bill are very limited. He also highlighted the recent successes of sacked strikers at Belfast Airport through Employment Tribunals.Jane James then spoke of the role of the Party in the unions after stressing the importance of both youth work and union work. She described workplace disputes as ‘natural territory’. She highlighted the Party’s achievement in getting 22 comrades elected onto union executives (including 11 in the PCS). The discussions then moved back to the floor. A comrade from Unite stated ‘if we do not organise, the trade union movement will die’. Another from USDAW warned that ‘bureaucrats will pull back from organising if they feel that new reps are threatening their position’.Keith Dickinson made the final contribution when he stressed the need for comrades not to lose sight of the importance of keeping engaged with your local Party branch.

All in all, I enjoyed this meeting. Possibly, for me, discussions on strategy came a bit late in the day, but I realise there is only so much you can fit into five hours. It is good to hear comrades talking about the struggles at their workplaces, and maybe this could provide a basis for more focused discussions on strategy later. If I have made any major errors or omissions, it is down to sloppy note-taking or the occasional need to go outside for a cigarette, and I apologise.

Sparta Techno Party

I'd like to welcome Brother S to AVPS. Like myself, the steel in his Bolshevik soul was forged in foundry of Stoke's titanic class battles. He will be posting his musings on various subjects when he can fit a post in between his Stakhanovite PhD labours and party duties.

To celebrate, here is what my tune of the week would have been if it was out on general release. (Note to Jim D, this definitely does not feature John Rees).

Trip to Manchester

I love leftist exaggeration. Some stirring examples being discussed on Leftist Trainspotters and Urban 75 as I speak.

I was heartened to see the tradition is still alive and well, if this Saturday's demo in defence of asylum seekers in Manchester was anything to go by.

We went up Manchester for the day to spend some much needed quality time with one another. I got ripped off at Drucker's in the Arndale Centre (£17 for a chicken and bacon wrap, a toasted cheese sandwich, a coffee, a coke, a slice of apple pie and chocolate cake with cream!), were pleased to see the utterly vile public urinals have been removed, and was thankful for some proper August weather for a change!

As we were wandering about we happened upon a small demo by asylum seeker campaigners and various others. I was disappointed to see most of the Manc left were absent. It looked as if the Revolutionary Communist Group had a national mobilisation for the event (they had about 10 comrades there), and I spied John Nicholson of Greater Manchester Socialist Alliance fame and a woman who looked like Sheila Rowbotham at a distance, but probably wasn't. I signed some nice old bloke's CND petition against Trident renewal, but sadly the RCG left me alone. Perhaps I looked too bourgeois for them, being white, male, and of working class stock.

Then came the piece de resistance. Once the demo had filed into Albert Square and the speakers assumed their position on John Bright's statue, the speaker thanked the two hundred or so who made it to the demonstration that day. Being a spotterly type, I couldn't help but count the attendees. There was 60. But knowing how these things work, 200 will become the accepted figure. Expect to see it touted in the next Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! and go down in the annals of labour movement lore.

But this guy was an amateur when you compare him with "one of the leaders of the biggest mass movement in British history", brother John Rees of the SWP. This was filmed at this year's Marxism. I'll let him speak for himself (the top stuff's about 2 minutes in)

Branch Meeting: Private Armies

Last night at our Socialist Party branch meeting, comrade N led off with the growing employment of private military contractors by the US and UK governments, among others.

Mercenaries, as they're better known, comprise a large chunk of the army of occupation in Iraq. At present there are 360 companies working under US army contracts. Their 180,000 employees outnumber the 120,000 military personnel. Most of these are non-combatants, hired predominantly from Iraqis themselves to play the back room support roles, ranging from doing the laundry to maintaining US trucks, personnel carriers, etc. But of these employees, around a quarter (48,000) are mercenaries.

It's easy to understand why there are so many mercenaries. Typically they can earn $650 a day, sometimes going up as high as $1,000. This is far more than what the regular troops earn, by the way. And they are seeing active service. But given the high price for their "labour power", what's the rationale for their use? One factor is the propaganda war. Around 900 of these have been killed during the course of the occupation, and very conveniently go uncounted in the US military casualty statistics. And then there's the alleged trickle-down. 118,000 of the contractors are Iraqis, therefore it can be argued the infrastructure of the occupation provides them with jobs, which theoretically helps stimulate the local economy (needless to say, they are on a lot less then the fees demanded by the mercenaries). Nevertheless, these contractors have a stake in continuing the occupation.

The use of private armies is the outcome of conscious policy decisions by Bush and his Neo-con coterie. Since 2004, the federal government has spent $750 million on contracts for diplomatic security. One such mercenary firm to have benefited from this bonanza is Blackwater (now the subject of a book and increased scrutiny). Forget your zog-obsessed survivalist militias. This firm owns two military facilities, possesses 20 helicopter gunships, has 21,000 reserves and is currently building the capability to produce its own range of armoured vehicles. All of this is taking place in the middle of the US heartland. It is packed to the gills with former US military and intelligence operatives, and is run by Erik Prince, a Christian fundamentalist, and coincidentally a source of funds for the Republican party.

Before opening the discussion out, N asked whether there were dangers in military outsourcing. After all, you can take the classical Marxist position that the state, the general committee of the ruling class ultimately rest on having the monopoly of violence. The military serves bourgeois interests, so do the likes of Blackwater, Aegis, Dyncorp. Should it make any difference from a socialist point of view?

J came in over the question of political accountability. She suggested it enabled our political masters to put distance between themselves and the more dubious operations mercenaries will undertake at the occupation's behest. She also said that the US government has a pedigree of equipping and funding proxy forces, such as the contras in Nicaragua. Handing out contracts to militarised corporations is just an extension of what's gone before.

M took up the point about statistics. By keeping the number of official troops low, war weariness isn't as likely to reach that critical boiling point. In fact, by employing more mercenaries and getting them to fulfil the role played by regular US and UK forces, the governments can argue that they're actually scaling down the occupation. But also, the contradiction between capital and labour comes into play in a way it doesn't with sovereign armies. If Blackwater contractors are receiving $650 for a day's active duty, how much is the firm creaming off in surplus value?

Because of this, P noted the historical experience of mercenary forces. Armies deployed by nation states tend to be highly regimented and structured fighting machines. Discipline, codes of honour, regimental identity and patriotic fealty combine together to give them a common bond even before they hit the battlefield. The loyalty of mercenaries on the other hand only go as far as their next pay cheque. As their relationship to their superiors is governed by the cash nexus, what's stopping them from leaving if the situation gets too hairy? Therefore the different conditions and the greater material rewards available to them could lead to episodic tensions with regular troops, and contribute to a decline in morale.

A argued that for the reasons outlined above, there would be a certain limit to military contracts. He suggested the German ruling class lost control over the Nazis - their state developed at times complementary, at times distinct interests vis a vis the German bourgeoisie. In this process the military apparatus of the German state came under control of the Nazi party, and as a result led Germany to ruin. The lesson the ruling class have drawn from this experience is to not allow their monopoly on the means of violence be usurped by another force. Therefore it's very unlikely private military firms will play anything other than an auxiliary role.

Summing up N agreed with all these points. He suggested that the clients of these firms won't necessarily stop at states. What's to stop other corporations from offering Blackwater et al contracts to clean up their messes? For instance, no doubt Shell wouldn't be averse to hiring a few platoons to keep their Niger Delta operations secure. Also there are attempts by these firms to have their combatants covered by the same legal protections covering conventional personnel. What this amounts to is yet another bulwark, another fall back position the ruling class could rely on if their grip on power is seriously challenged. Socialists would ignore these developments at their peril.

Binge 'n' Purge

During AVPS's recent patchy period, the pool of left bloggers has burst its banks and is dribbling its influence all over blogland, so I thought it was time the blogroll reflected this and the few I overlooked first time round.

Onto it I welcome Hak Mao, Grimmerupnorth, Burn the Witches, Labour Left Forum, Ian's Red Blog, Organized Rage, Being Amber Rhea, Labour's Fightback, Stumbling and Mumbling, Through the Scary Door, Modernity Blog, Next Left Notes, Ian Bone, A Femanist View, and Peoples' Republic of Tyneside.

Unfortunately, a few blogs have fallen by the wayside. So it's goodbye to La Femme Contraire, Desperate Kingdoms, Militant, Janine's Blog, Socialist Youth Network, The Pleasures of the Popular, The Revolution Decides, and Whatever Happened to Leon Trotsky.

If any comrades who run these blogs start posting on them again, please let me know and you'll be readmitted to the coveted AVPS blogroll.

I must give a shout out to one blog I view without fail everyday, and that is Obsolete by the mysterious Septic Isle. If fisking the bourgeois media is your bag, check it out. It's a blog that deserves to be on every progressive blogroll.

I haven't had the time to go through the social science and establishment blogs, but both will get the binge 'n' purge treatment soon.

Black Man by Richard Morgan

Black Man is a departure from the recent run of emotionally fraught novels that have come my way. Out goes the carefully drawn characters and the observance of literary sensibilities, and in comes a 500-page avalanche of high power über-violence.

Richard Morgan's first novel, Altered Carbon, caused a minor literary flap when it was published in 2002. Its fusion of mindless brutality and cyberpunk somehow captured the post-9/11 sci-fi zeitgeist. Since then, he's spun off two further novels, Broken Angels and Woken Furies, in a sort-of trilogy. All three feature Takeshi Kovacs, a psychopathic Mr Fixit-type commando character (officially entitled an 'Envoy') used by the powers that be to put down rebellions against corporate-owned colonies. All are set several centuries hence and see our anti-hero hunting down ne'er do wells even more despicable than himself. The unique selling point to the novels - the "intellectual" angle if you can call it that, is most people have "stacks" implanted in their necks that record a one's memories, which can then be implanted and downloaded into other "sleeves" (bodies). I suppose this dissociation of identity from the body got some postmodern literary types excited, somewhere.

Black Man differs from the Kovacs novels on two counts. It's set only a century from now. And intellectually, the cyberpunky-Cartesian transcendence of the meat is replaced by a renewed focus on the potentials of the flesh. Carl Marsalis, our anti-hero, is genetically engineered. And this is where the difference between this and Morgan's earlier books end. Marsalis is a psychopathic Mr Fixit-type commando character used by the powers that be to put down rebellions and clean up their messes. Part detective story, part gore fest, Marsalis and Sevgi Ertekin (ex-NYPD and partner) have to hunt down Merrin, another "genengineered" bad boy who turned his transport ship back from Mars into an abattoir. As they close in the protagonists are entangled in the tendrils of a complicated conspiracy, and true to form can only extricate themselves with extreme prejudice and copious violence.

So why am I bothering spending time on something as transparently trashy as Black Man? Well, bizarrely, just like The Amateur Marriage, it can be read as a meditation on masculine crisis. As is usually the case with hardboiled sci-fi, social commentary rests in the premise rather than the playing out of characters' relationships. In Morgan's timeline, the USA one century hence has ceased to exist. The North Eastern and West coast states have ceded from the union, and a Republican-dominated Confederated States of America have arisen. The rump is deregulated, dog-eat-dog, backward, and dominated by Christian fundamentalism. Small wonder the characters dub it Jesusland. By contrast the secessionist states are technologically sophisticated and socially permissive. I can't help the feeling that someone has been taking the last electoral college map of the USA a little too seriously.

The products of the gene technologies at the heart of the novel are crudely gendered. The Variant 13 technology (of which Marsalis is product) created a sub-species of male psychopaths, unencumbered by social solidarity or notions of abstract morality. They really don't give a shit about anyone. Morgan then goes into a flight of fancy about the thirteens being an evolutionary throw back to when we were a hunter/gatherers. But when humans became "feminised" (i.e. settled down into surplus-producing agrarian societies), the prehistoric thirteens lost their evolutionary niche and were bred out of the human gene pool. That was until feminised humanity became too soft to fight its battles and resurrected them to sort out capitalism's pathological violence.

So here we have it - ruthlessness, single mindedness, detachment, sociopathy, are biologically determined masculine traits. As if to underline this, the other main kind of genengineered human frequently mentioned are the bonobos - a subspecies of women genetically manipulated to be submissive, ultra-feminine, and fulfil a man's every sexual desire. Weirdly they hibernate for four months of the year - as if they weren't already enough in thrall to male protection And if that isn't enough, we learn the USA fractured was because the Jesus freaks in the US heartland wanted to reassert Christian-patriarchal values.

Sociological absurdities aside, does Morgan really believe this thesis is a going concern? Is his celebration of the hyper-macho a counter-blast to what he sees as the feminisation of contemporary society? It's hard to say. Black Man is probably his most violent book so far. When Marsalis is not breaking necks and blowing brains out, the dialogue - involving him or not - are nearly always confrontational. The normal human characters tend to be cardboard and interact with one another as if they're all hard men, including the women and the one bonobo who has a speaking part. You could think Morgan's being intelligent here ... except to say stilted characterisation and unintentionally funny-but-menacing dialogue are features of his previous books. That said, complexity tries to get a look-in. Marsalis and his arch nemesis do break their genetic programme and start caring about their female significant others, but gendered simplicity soon reasserts itself. Without giving the game away, the resolution involves lots of guns and buckets of blood.

One for the Andy McNab wannabes I think.

Branch Meeting: Trade Union "Partnerships"

Thursday's Stoke Socialist Party branch meeting was given over to a general overview of trade union backed employee/employer partnerships.

Starting in the present, comrade S noted the theory and practice of partnership has a long pedigree in British industrial relations. Though union leaders, typically but not exclusively on the right of the labour movement, have been openly touting partnership these last couple of decades, its lineage can be traced back to at least the Second World War. The war effort was broadly supported by the bulk of the labour movement, and later acquired a more radical gloss as the official CPGB threw its industrial muscle behind class compromise - thanks to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. The productivity gains were plain to see - Britain consistently out-produced the Nazis through out the war.

Collaboration between management and the shop floor became the foundation stone of the post-war settlement. As Will Hutton noted in his perceptive Keynesian polemic, The State We're In, the union movement may have had a confrontational relationship with management, but this power was, in the main, kept well within the bounds of the system. In the 1947-75 period, capital was prepared to grant concessions to wide scale and diffuse mobilisations around the nuts and bolts of work speed, hours, conditions, and wages. It might have been an inconvenience from the standpoint of the ruling class, but it was better to have the labour movement fighting over crumbs instead of challenging for ownership of the bakery. It was partnership by more militant means.

With the strategic defeats inflicted upon the labour movement in the 80s and early 90s, and the tilting of the balance in forces in favour of capital, partnership rhetoric came increasingly to the fore. Unions increasingly approached employers cap in hand, humbly suggesting unionised workplaces offer bosses industrial peace and productivity gains. On a number of occasions, unions grotesquely competed with each other to see who could offer an employer the most supine sweetheart deal in exchange for recognition.

S then went into the specifics of recognition deals done on employers' terms. Rather than being a counterweight, New Realist unions were capital's helpmate. There was a tendency toward health and safety work, where basically a firm's procedures could be audited without accruing any costs to themselves. Unions' promotions of equal opportunities helped make the workplace a better place for women, BME, migrant, disabled, and LGBT workers, but capital reaped the ideological benefits. Also, the unions' emphasis on training and development, and life-long learning (enthusiastically backed by New Labour) have undoubtedly benefited capital as a whole by displacing the cost of retraining from employers onto the labour movement. And of course, often acted as unpaid consultants offering suggestions in saving money or increasing production.

Have the unions themselves got much out of this arrangement? It could be argued in the context of the 90s that partnership was the only realistic way of getting your foot in the door. That at least a union presence meant a new generation of union activists could be trained up, and the falling subscription base stymied. But at what cost to workers themselves?

M came in with her own experience on the pot banks in the early 90s. When new machinery was introduced that meant her job could be done in 20% less time, the firm decided the workers would receive a 20% wage cut. CATU (now Unity) was called in, and from the shop floor the rep could be seen having a laugh over tea and biscuits in management's office. He then emerged and said he'd negotiated the cut down to 15%, saying it was all he could do. There was no suggestion the workers should fight. A recalled trying to work with CATU in the same period. He remembered the bureaucracy were very keen on partnership, and as a result they saw themselves as a re-skilling agency rather than an organisation set up to defend workers jobs. CATU's fate is instructive. Partnership gave them a tiny, atomised subscription base that keeps the wagon on the road, and for Stoke-on-Trent, skilled and comparatively well-paid potters jobs have been exported overseas.

Inevitably, the discussion moved on to the postal dispute. A and J both the CWU leadership have long accepted the existence of a postal market and the need for the post office to "modernise" itself along neo-liberal lines; so already the strategy the union's pursuing is half-hobbled. A feared a section of the bureaucracy could capitulate if management so much as dangled the possibility of talks. For instance, the current phase of rolling action puts some workers in the awkward position of having to handle scab mail, or having to cross picket lines. Though you can see the intention of maximising the impact of action, taking workers out sectionally can lead to unofficial action (as has been seen in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen), and/or confusion and demoralisation. A couldn't get away from the sneaking suspicion that this is why a section of the bureaucracy supported this move.

In summing up his lead off, S argued that ultimately, employee/employer partnerships are a pipe dream. The class struggle in capitalist society is ultimately over the disposal of surplus value generated by not paying workers the full value of their labour. The position of capital and labour are irreconcilable. Union bureaucracies do however have a material interest in negotiating the best possible price (in theory) for their members' labour power, so they owe their position to being mediators between the two antagonistic poles. Partnership therefore is the expression of their material existence in the realm of ideas. In the postwar period it delivered real benefits to workers. Now, when capitalism is red in tooth and claw, partnership is a recipe for reformism without reforms.