Workers need good leadership with an honest democratic style. Without good leadership, our fight is blind. Without mass democracy, the great talents and experience of the masses cannot be used to defeat the class enemy. The RCLB fights for democratic Unions, because working class democracy is a powerful weapon against the bosses and the opportunists. Working class democracy is based on the mass involvement of the workers. The demand for democratic Unions gives much more weight to our fight in the interests of the masses.
Many organisations which call themselves “socialist” or “communist” talk a lot about the need for “democracy” in the Unions, but nearly always this means to them methods of election, or the pay-rates of officials etc. They concern themselves only with the formal democratic structure of the Unions. Whilst it is essential to fight on these issues, they are ignoring the point. An important point is the undemocratic method of work of the Unions. The main point is that suppression of the workers revolt against capitalism by the opportunists is effective only when the masses do not have the weapon of democracy in their hands. Therefore we oppose all things which rob the masses of this weapon.
The November 1977 issue of “Class Struggle” carried an article on the Ford’s pay claim. “Class Struggle” pointed out that at no stage of drawing up the claim or during the negotiations did the shop stewards call meetings of their section to discuss the demands of the workers or to inform them of the situation. The only time when the workers were informed was at a huge mass meeting of thousands to vote on whether to accept the Ford’s bosses “final offer”.
Such a lack of regular meetings between shop stewards and their sections is the normal practice throughout industry. When this is criticised the shop stewards’ frequent response is “meetings would undermine our authority”. This is rubbish. We should elect good class conscious workers to act as class leaders, but they should be in close touch with their members’ views. The majority of workers should be enabled to take part in collective discussions on the main issues.
It is a fact also that in most Trade Union branches only 10 or 20 out of hundreds or even thousands of members attend meetings. The opportunists claim that this is because workers are “backward”. This arrogant rubbish hides the real vandals – the opportunist misleaders themselves who create the situation.
After refusing to hold meetings at the work place itself, when a branch meeting outside work is called the opportunists usually make it a farce. It is the bureaucratic wranglings and back-stabbings; it is the failure to promote free discussions where workers can speak out without being shouted down; it is the way meetings are run – and sometimes the times and the places they are held – which reduces the involvement of workers in the Unions. It is frequently the case that workers are actively discouraged from attending meetings and told to rely on the leaders instead. The introduction of the check-off system, where Union dues are collected by the management, is another way the opportunists have cut contact between workers and the Union structure.
There are many other ways the opportunists avoid involvement of the workers which they fear. When a factory dispute arises the Union official – “our saviour from on high” – swoops in from the office to handle it for us – usually to sell out. What really shows up the bureaucracy is the whole idea of the “unofficial strike”. No matter that the workers in a factory have voted to strike, if the opportunist misleaders don’t like it – its “unofficial”. The bourgeoisie are so sure of the protection they get from the Union bureaucrats that from time to time they come up with the idea to make all “unofficial strikes” illegal!
It is all these thousand and one other opportunist practices that we must fight to change if we are to build real shop-floor democracy, mass involvement, and mass action in the unions. At the same time we must take up the struggle for formal democracy; the election of officials who should be recallable at conference and so on. As we organise to take up this struggle we will find “militants” as well as “moderates” will oppose us. Both “left” and “right” opportunists fear the involvement and the activities of the masses.