The elections for general secretary of the Unite union from 14 July and 11 August tell you everything you need to know about the rotten relationship between swathes of the British left and the trade union movement in Britain. There are two candidates: the incumbent, Sharon Graham; and Simon Dubbins, international secretary since 2008, and an executive committee member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Extraordinarily, British self-styled ‘revolutionary’ groups are rushing to promote the electoral chances of one or other of these ruling class representatives. In 1900, US syndicalist leader Daniel de Leon said ‘Capital manages to cheat labour with the assistance of capital’s “Labour Lieutenants”, the officers and placemen of the Union’, and Graham and Dubbins are just that. Lenin was of the opinion that this was a ‘magnificently expressive and very fitting title’, adding that:
‘They represent the latest, “modern”, type of socialist treachery, for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting “gain” from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of “their own” country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.’
Graham and Dubbins are not mere ‘bureaucrats’, as the ‘left’ call them: they do not somehow float outside the capital/labour relationship as a layer which could be won to the side of progress if only they were not so privileged or constrained by their reformist outlook. No, they are agents of the ruling class whose subalterns occupy every level of the trade union apparatus. They are imperialists.
Reducing them to ‘bureaucrats’ has a political purpose: the left wants a heave-up into this ‘bureaucracy’ and see the easiest way forward by allying themselves with one or other side. At present, the Socialist Workers’ Party, Socialist Party, Socialist Alliance, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and rs21 are vying for the favours of Graham; while Counterfire and the Communist Party of Britain prefer the nonentity Dubbins.
Those supporting Graham try to justify themselves despite her thoroughly reactionary imperialist politics. She has:
- denounced Palestine supporters picketing arms factories;
- welcomed extra defence spending and demanded that it goes to British manufacturers;
- backed NATO’s war against Russia;
- attacked ‘groups that look to build networks inside trade unions to undermine the defence industry or demand the disbandment of NATO and AUKUS’;
- expressed opposition to the prospect of Andy Burnham appointing Ed Miliband as chancellor because of Miliband’s opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
So what does it mean to support her? It means defending trade union imperialism. It means throwing the victims of war and genocide under the bus. It means abandoning the real class struggle against capitalism and imperialism in favour of sops. But the SWP, SP and rs21 do not care. They are more concerned about their future positions and influence within the union.
What do they say? Socialist Worker excuses Graham’s reactionary politics by passing them off as a ‘downplaying of campaigning over political issues’. It tries to defend her by quoting her describing Gaza as a genocide, but to what end? She is just playing to the gallery and the SWP provides the applause. Finally, it says ‘Socialist Worker supporters will cast a critical vote for Graham to stand with many of the best militants in the union.’
But ‘many of the best militants’ are pro-imperialist and a significant proportion will be for Reform UK. They are militants in name only, a backward section of the working class. The RCP echoes the SWP, stating that ‘In effect, by voting for Graham’s platform, workers are saying—with scepticism—“we support the industrial militancy that has taken place since Graham was elected; we want it to go the whole way”. The Revolutionary Communists fully stand by this sentiment.’ The RCP hides behind such trade union backwardness to cover for its capitulation to an imperialist reactionary.
The Socialist Party is also unashamed about backing Graham. Of course it claims it is not ‘uncritical’ of her – but despite this, gives a ringing endorsement: ‘Nevertheless, we will be campaigning hard to get Sharon Graham re-elected, as workers need fighting unions to represent their interests’.
Rs21 gives a tortuous, evasive and lengthy essay on Graham’s failings, but decides that despite everything, Graham’s ‘commitment to workplace organising and industrial struggle is the better option for developing a layer of trade unionists who feel confident to organise at work’. Socialist Alternative says much the same. Like the SWP and RCP, neither want to fight for socialism, they just want to be seen as good trade unionists: ‘workplace organising’ is a much easier sell than anti-imperialism.
None of these organisations tell us the truth about trade union imperialism, or about the role of the labour lieutenants of capital. They do not have the class consciousness to call out the trade union leadership as agents of the ruling class. Instead they whitewash them by rabbiting on about ‘bureaucracy’, a concept from bourgeois sociology which in their hands has no class content. In their campaigns for Graham or Dubbins, they never state the facts about trade union membership: a quarter of trade unionists are on £50,000 or more; nearly 40% are aged over 50 whereas fewer than 5% are under 24 years old; nearly two-thirds have degrees or equivalent, or the overwhelming bulk of trade unionists are white-collar workers and that white collar unions locally are run by lower management.
Communists are clear: the unions are run by a privileged layer of the working class in their own narrow interests. They are still the beneficiaries of imperialist looting and plunder, and the natural allies of the open labour lieutenants of capital. Apart from the operation of the anti-trade union laws, it is the single most important reason why annual levels of industrial action have been at their lowest historical levels since the beginning of the 1990s.
The SWP, RCP etc talk in abstract terms about ‘bureaucracy’ to avoid acknowledging such realities and to promote trade union imperialism. The job of socialists and communists is not to prettify the trade unions but to analyse them as they really are in imperialist Britain. Least of all is it to present the backwardness of trade union consciousness as the height of class awareness. Supporting either of the two candidates gives express legitimacy to ‘socialist’ imperialism. Socialist members of Unite must boycott this contest.
Robert Clough
