CPA Stalinists for �fair Employers�
At an October 5 meeting of Inner West Rights at Work, Sydney a representative of Unions NSW addressed the meeting on the virtues of the Fair Employer campaign. Yes, it was important to hear what our leadership had to say. After explaining their case, the representative left the room and debate took place. The most enthusiastic promoters of this class collaborationist gimmick were the Stalinist Communist Party of Australia (CPA).
The CPA is the continuity of the old Socialist Party of Australia. The SPA broke away from the old CPA led by Laurie Aarons. The Aarons led CPA promoted militancy even when it inconvenienced sections of the trade union bureaucracy
Those who became the SPA attacked this as setting worker against worker. They called for unity. Whereas the Aarons led CPA supported militant protest movements, the SPA supported the old strategy of Unity Against Monopoly. The SPA took up the name Communist whe it was clear the CPA abandoned identifying itself with communism and became the New Left Party. So the SPA became the CPA
The CPA have , in the past argued for unity. This has meant do what the bureaucrats do, no matter what However their rationalisation for supporting class collaboration �Fair Employer� is different. It fits in with their unity against monopoly strategy.
At Inner West Rights at Work ,the CPA have failed to confront most of the criticism from their most vocal opponents. But their leading member Denis Doherty has made a strategic rationalisation. We quote him from an e-mail letter to IW_YRAW as follows (with minor corrections)
As a "CPA people" I would like to say that we analyse the powerhouse for
'workchoices'' as big business and multinationals. They want the workers and small business to pay for any changes they have to make to keep up with Chinese and Indian competition. The Howard Government is simply acting on behest of the business council of Australia and other horrible mobs. They will not stop at 'Workchoices' and have promised to have a second layer of attacks on unions.
Unfortunately they have chosen to attack at a time when the unions are down
in support. The % of union members in the work force is around 15% to 23%, anyway you look at it is not a good strong position. What do we do in
such a situation? We look for allies! So far the unions have secured the support of the mainstream churches, and are extending their support
>networks to other community groups. Why shouldn't we include some small businesses and undermine a Howard strategy as the small business
government? It makes sense.
The Fair Employers Scheme should be just be a sideline and not a major effort in itself. It is a tactic not a strategy. It is envisaged as far as I can remember that the discussion that followed the presentation that we do some work on this scheme but that it not take over from getting more union members, name and shame, extending the community support.
When Rochelle approached us with her idea on small business in the course of our effort on extending the support for IW-YRAW to the Greens we reported it to the group. They were objections raised and it seem it needed too much work by our small group. Unions NSW came along with the
same idea and with the resources to make it possible.
As a 'CPA people' we have always worked for the greatest possible unity and even at the 11th hour last meeting we offered a compromise which was summarily rejected. We are working for unity and getting the greatest possible force together to defeat 'workchoices'. Let's get on with making
that force a reality! Let's be respectful of each others positions and focus on the main enemy - the Howard government and its mates.
Denis�
By e-mail October 6 .No other letter or document in the history of the �orthodox� proMoscow Stalinist movement has illustrated the class collaborationist nature of the Unity Against Monopoly strategy. To get unity, we crawl to employers. Is what the CPA is making clear. Often there is confusion As this is the monopoly phase of capitalism it appears to many that the CPA is opposing capitalism. By supporting this campaign they are exposing the fact that their strategy is not to overthrow capitalism but to support non-monopoly capitalists against big monopoly ones. .
His letter explains a strategy. But Denis fails to confront some pretty basic criticisms.
Firstly Fair Employer neither draws a line against monopoly capital and nor does it draw a line against big business. You can be a monopoly capitalist and a big business person and still support and even be recognised as a �Fair employer� There are no lines drawn. CPA may be focusing on small business but the campaign is not small business exclusive. Big business is welcome if it obeys some pretty minimal criteria.
Secondly it is doubtful whether Fair Employer can actually be called an alliance. An employer recognised as �fair� does not have to support the campaign against Workchoices .or give us money or improve workers wages and conditions. Nor even do they even have to oppose Howard! They may not necessarily be carrying out industrial relations in the way Howard would approve. But this does not necessarily mean that he or she is on our side!
Thirdly if we get sucked into crawling to employers who prefer class collaboration to confrontation we are digging our own grave. Bosses have one principle � profit. Workers Participation schemes are just as much part of capitalism�s arsenal as the direct confrontation approach of Howard. By crawling to apparently progressive capitalists were are exposing ourselves as weak and this could be fatal.
Fourthly there is a conflict for unionists who on one hand praise a boss for playing fairly under the old rules and having to fight that boss for better wages and conditions etc.
Alliances have to be principled. Yes it is important to win over sections of the middle class, unemployed, indigenous Australia, community groups etc. Both on the political and trade union level, unity with the class enemy compromises us.
The CPA, when called SPA played a progressive and principled role when it opposed the Prices and Incomes Accord. They did this even though it cost them a considerable proportion of their membership, including influential union leaders. Their support for Fair Employer shows that their principled opposition did not mean a methodological break from the Stalinist tradition of class collaboration