Trade Union Climate Change Conference

[Udo Erasmus]

Another report:
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...climate-change-trade-union-conference-report/

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Just on the mention by Caroline Lucas of Contraction and Convergence. Roy Wilkes has written a very good critique of why socialists should be critical of C&C

Is Contraction and Convergence the Answer to Climate Change?:
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=54

Reply by Aubrey Meyer, pioneer of C&C & Member of Green Party
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=61

 

[greenman]

Though I do not agree completely, this contribution to the Meyer-Wilkes debate by someone calling themselves "Rethinker" makes some relevant points. -

Quote - "Rethinker"
While in general I agree that Meyers’ pro-market orientation is not helpful, I still find myself uncomfortable with assertions that only socialism can solve the problem of ecological crisis. I agree that capitalism requires constant growth, and that this is ultimately unsustainable ecologically. But does that necessarily imply that large corporations are incapable of reducing fossil fuel consumption? The world has by and large reduced its consumption of other commodities (CFCs, for instance, or to use an example from Canadian history, beaver pelts) so why is it impossible to suggest that reducing fossil fuel consumption is impossible in a capitalist economy?

I say this not to defend capitalism, because I believe that capitalism is unjust and undemocratic, but because I am worried that there simply isn’t time to convince all the liberals and social democrats who want to use regulation and the powers of capitalist governments to slow and then stop global warming that this strategy won’t work. Global warming is so serious and urgent a problem that we simply can’t wait for the revolution to stop it.

Isn’t there a middle path between dogmatic assertions of the socialist theory and reliance on the market as a mechanism? Isn’t there some way to have governments regulate - and it would need to be very heavy regulation - industries in order to get GHG emissions reduced, without requiring the workers to seize control of the means of production? I fear that if we cling to that position, then we are likely to get marginalized, social democrats are not going to have enough support, and the planet is doomed.

I have never been happy with those who seem to respond to every social political and environmental question with "One Solution, Revolution". It denies the entire experience of the Western working class in achieving gains and reforms forced out of the current system. What is more it sometimes leads to suicidal behaviour amongst some leftists who seem to think that in every struggle the "revolution is just around the corner" and so try to push each partial struggle to a conclusion in violence and conflict rather than a temporary/provisional gain that will have to be defended whilst aiming for the next ratchet. This is not to say that revolutionary leaps forward cannot be made, just that these are rare in the scheme of things and usually the overall historic situation is the key determinant of their success or failure and so should be one of the main elements of any analysis of the advisability of treating any given situation as pre-revolutionary.

The point was made (indeed by a member of ISG/Socialist Resistance!) at the CACCTU conference that leaving the sorting out of the problem of climate change until "after the revolution" is an inadequate response, likely to demobilise or alienate the non-revolutionary majority of workers.

While many Greens (particularly in GPTU and Green Left) are critical of the Contraction and Convergence model (from a simlar viewpoint to the Trotskyist critics in terms of its' accommodation to and therefore seeming approval of market mechanisms) they are not about to start arguing that our only hope is a global revolution (within the next 10 years??!!) to save the planet and humanity. Moreover, as rethinker suggests it shows a particularly pessimistic, deterministic and fatalistic (or perhaps from a revolutionary point of view, over-optimistic) view of capitalism to think that it cannot accommodate some changes to deal with climate change (that these changes may impact negatively on many of us, and will need a fight to get the best deal possible for the worlds' poor goes without saying and is not the question). Marx would not likely have approved of the ahistorical view, seeing as he saw capitalism as a dynamic and progressive force that would only be superceded when the historic conditions had matured for its replacement (not due to some voluntaristic and improbable global revolt brought about in short order by a change in global climate)

It seems that for some on the Leninist left Climate Change has replaced the "inevitable" triumph of the Soviet Union, or the WRP's always "inevitable" and "imminent" final crisis of capitalism as the Magic Bullet that solves all problems and drives the masses behind their banner.

Is the mobilisation of the international working class desirable in the struggle against climate change? Of course. Should we give up all other campaigning to force the ruling class to take action (even in their own limited and unjust way) whilst we wait for a global revolution? We simply have not time. We should no more give up making suggestions of what can be achieved under the current system (and if those actions undermine the present system or give more power to the masses then all the better) than workers should give up fighting for better pay, or Council Tenants give up fighting to keep their estates public, or peace campaigners give up arguing for an end to individual imperialist wars "before the revolution". That the solutions Capital implements will be inadequate in the long run goes without saying, but it is in pushing for ever better adjustments, and ever more increase in the power of the masses that progress towards a better future is made (whether that will at some stage result in a revolutionary break or upheaval on whatever scale or not).

Oh, and the difference between the eco-hippies and liberals and the plummier Marxist Leninists is that the former do not claim to speak for or dictate to the working class, or even funnier pretend to be working clarrss.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Although the Party for Working Socialism and the Working Party for Socialists were there in full force along with the Being Nice Unity Coalitions, the thing that struck me about the debates was that they were based on scientific evidence and experiences rather than page numbers from Das Kapital.

I found the conversations stimulating and enjoyable and learnt a lot from the experiences of others that I can take back and spread to others.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Oh, and the difference between the eco-hippies and liberals and the plummier Marxist Leninists is that the former do not claim to speak for or dictate to the working class, or even funnier pretend to be working clarrss.

Maybe so but they're just as irritating with a total smugness about them. The Greens are full of those types.

In terms of talking about a "third way", well what is it? Socialism might well not, and probably won't, be achieved in the next 10 years, but there is always a chance, however slim. But what is the alternative?

Of course reforms can be won under capitalism, I don't believe any trotskyist would say otherwise, but to stop climate change will take more than just a few reforms. Maybe capitalism will be able to find a way to stop things, through technological innovations. But to be honest I find this even more unlikely than achieving socialism given the inherent conditions of profit maxismisation under capitalism.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Isn’t there some way to have governments regulate - and it would need to be very heavy regulation - industries in order to get GHG emissions reduced, without requiring the workers to seize control of the means of production?

Only an idiot would think that shouting "one solution revolution" would be an answer but on the other hand what is this "other way" we can get governments to regulate?

And while capitalism is brilliant in terms of being able to change and adapt to challenges how could it conceivably react in time to stop climate change? Technological advance maybe, but at the moment there is no sign of this. And even if action was taken it would be at the total expense of the working class.

So if not socialism then what? (And as said socialists would fight for reforms anyway).

 

[greenman]

Well, as an ecosocialist I am totally in agreement that we need to build a mass movement with the political clout to make life very difficult for politicians and corporations that are not making the technological and political changes required. We need to be able to fight the likely and already evident tendency of the rich to present the bill for adaptation and mitigation to the poor. I think we can learn from the syndicalists of old about uncompromising struggle to wrest what is needed from the rulers when they will not comply with what scientists and NGOs are telling them is necesary. It goes without saying that I would like to see an ecosocialist society and a new social and economic set up on a global scale, but in the next ten years we have to be totally focussed on making sure that everything that can be done to avert the looming catastrophe is done. This does not mean "making peace with Capital", quite the opposite - as the old syndicalists used to say, the struggle will be "revolutionary gymnastics", building up strength and unity for the future. So, many of the measures we seek to force on the current rulers will be socialist solutions, and measures we can take ourselves may prefigure socialist social and economic forms. So primarily we need (as a point of urgency) an ecosocialism of the streets and the workplaces before we can even dream of an ecosocialism of republics and confederations!

 

[cockneyrebel]

Well we probably agree on quite a bit then!

 

[cockneyrebel]

Here's another report:

CCTU conference report

About 300 people turned up to the Trade Union Climate Change Conference yesterday. All in all it wasn't a bad day, with a mixture of positives and negatives.

The initial plenary was probably the worst session of the day with apolitical and dull speeches and a rallying call from multi-home owner, war voting Michael Meacher for "all power to"...........wait for it………"your elbow".......the only exception was Matt Wrack from the FBU who brought up the need for a political struggle (socialism) in order to ultimately stop climate change and the centrality of the working class to stopping climate change.

The oddly named "workshops" (they were in fact meetings with question and answer sessions at the end) were more of a mixed bunch with some being totally apolitical and others having some real debate and constructive suggestions about how we can move forward.

The first workshop I went to was about international treaties. There were fairly bland speeches from the top table (two SWPers and one other), although the important point was raised that there is currently a lot of propaganda that China and India are the main polluters. But if you look at "carbon emissions per head" both countries are still below the global average and far below places like the USA and UK. As such any solution to climate changed shouldn't revolve around punitive measures for impoverished communities and the working class but taking on imperialist governments and multi-national firms who are the driving force behind fossil fuels.

There was debate from the floor about how the wider political questions couldn't be avoided as capitalism in and of itself couldn't provide the answer as only planned economies could deal with the international chaos of climate change. Most seemed to agree with this although others took the position that capitalism was here to stay so only the nuts and bolts about what to do next could be talked about. Some people stressed the need to re-vitalise the anti-capitalist movement and that action through the unions and on the street was what were needed, not lobbying and parliament.

The second session was about "Greening the workplace". There was a totally apolitical talk from someone from the TUC but a good talk from Paul Hampton from the Labour Research Department about how the unions and the working class had to be the centre piece of any fight back on climate change. Both speakers talked about new union initiatives such as "green reps" and Paul Hampton made the point that some union negotiations on green efficiency savings had linked them into bonuses/better wages for workers, which I thought was a really good idea.

I made the point from the floor that many (if not most) union branches are moribund and that there weren't any stewards/members meetings in a lot of supposedly unionised places, let alone green reps. I also said that most union general secretaries are on 70/80k a year and in the pocket of Blair and now Brown and that strike figures have been at an historical low recently. However this isn't a reason to be negative but recognising where we're at and that any push to challenge climate change through the unions would have to go hand in hand with rebuilding and reclaiming the unions for their members (including linking up with things like the RMTs national steward network initiative). Basic stuff like having members meetings, recruiting stewards (and green reps), putting up message boards etc would have to be built up and that unions would have to have decent leadership and become militant/fighting unions, only then could we make a real difference. The SWP speakers from the floor predictably said that we can't be negative, must be positive. But in doing so they ducked the questions of how bad a state the unions are in and how terrible the union bureaucracies are.

Other speakers from the NUT said that building eco-friendly schools (which account for a big percentage of public sector carbon emissions) was being severely hampered by PFIs and private sector companies who just want to do things on the cheap.

The last plenary was far better than the opening one. Jonathon Neale from the SWP gave an impassioned if very cheesy opening speech ending by saying "we have just had an historic event"........then John McDonnell MP gave a moving and interesting speech and stressed that everyone should get involved in the campaign against the Heathrow expansion that would result in the displacement of up to 50,000 people and affect over 50 schools (with some being shut down) and stressed that direct action was needed, not just words. Derek Wall from the Green Party gave a fairly interesting talk and stressed the need for "eco-socialism", followed by Elaine Graham-Leigh and the last speaker Tony Kearns from the CWU gave a very good and impassioned speech talking about the history of trade unionism and green issues (going back to the match girls in the 19th century) and that the trade union movement needed to be re-vitalised and have the leading role in tackling climate change.

The conference ended with a bit of controversy as the top table decided that they would accept one amendment to a resolution that the conference was to vote on, but that four others could only be spoken on but not voted on or added to. This seemed undemocratic and I couldn't see why the conference as a whole couldn't have had a vote on this.

The four speakers from the floor gave very good contributions with George Binette from Permanent Revolution stressing that the resolution should have raised the demand of renationalising the transport system and that the campaign as a whole should take up the aim of socialism.

The resolution was then passed almost unanimously.

Overall the conference had some positive points and some good debate and some activists will leave with some practical suggestions. However I'd say a fair chunk of the debate was bland and apolitical and the conference could have ended with some practical points in the resolution that could help move things on from the founding conference. What we have to make sure is that this isn't a campaign that ends up as a talking shop. Hopefully this won't be the case as getting so many unions in one conference talking about such a crucial issue as climate change was a good step forward.

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1918

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The conference ended with a bit of controversy as the top table decided that they would accept one amendment to a resolution that the conference was to vote on, but that four others could only be spoken on but not voted on or added to. This seemed undemocratic and I couldn't see why the conference as a whole couldn't have had a vote on this.

The four speakers from the floor gave very good contributions with George Binette from Permanent Revolution stressing that the resolution should have raised the demand of renationalising the transport system and that the campaign as a whole should take up the aim of socialism.

The resolution was then passed almost unanimously.

There's a reply to this by one of the main organisers of the conference posted on another site:

294 delegates registered, and in addition there were workshop speakers and stall holders, so there were a little over 300 people in all.

At the October planning meeting we discussed the idea of the conference adopting a Trade Union Charter on climate change. Martin brought a proposal for a charter to the January planning meeting, but the meeting decided that there wouldn’t be enough time to adequately discuss such a detailed proposal. In particular Phil Thornhill, the national organiser of the CCC, was uncomfortable with us adopting a detailed policy which went so far beyond the aims of the CCC. So instead it was agreed that we would put a much simpler enabling motion as a means of committing ourselves to continuing the process of organising within the unions - both to build the campaign itself and to encourage unions to adopt effective policies relevant to the industries in which they organise. The procedure we agreed was that I would draft a motion which would be discussed via the email list (which at that stage already had over 200 members) prior to it being put to the conference itself. We felt that the conference should vote on something just as a way of expressing the view that this conference was not an end in itself but merely the start of a process which needs to continue. If we hadn’t put anything to the vote it might have appeared as simply a one off educational event.

So, I put a proposal out to the list, several people submitted amendments, which I composited to the original motion (with the agreement of those who submitted them.) I then put the final version out to the list a week before the conference. So far so good. Then Workers Power sent me a further amendment on Tuesday, i.e. 4 days before the conference. There was nothing wrong with it (it just called for unions to build the next national climate march, although it added nothing to the original motion, which already called for unions to build all the actions of the CCC except it was problematic in practical terms since the delegate information leaflet had already gone for printing with what I thought was a finalised motion. We were worried that if we accepted this amendment at the conference others would want to put further amendments, and we knew that there simply wouldn’t be time to discuss them properly.

But we wanted to be as inclusive and open as possible, so the conference planning group met on Saturday morning and decided on a procedure, which was that we would invite amendments to be submitted, and that we would meet as a conference arrangements committee at 2pm to try to composite amendments to the main motion.

At 2pm we met and decided to accept the Workers Power amendment but that the others either would take too long to properly discuss or else would go beyond the remit of the conference, so we decided to invite the movers to speak in the final plenary but not put their amendments to the vote.

With the benefit of hindsight, my view now is that we should have put it to a vote to remit the amendments for further discussion at a recall conference.

There is however an issue that needs to be discussed both by the CCCTU group and by the CCC as a whole, which is about how we build the broadest possible united front while also advancing meaningful solutions to climate change. Phil Thornhill’s view is that the CCC, or indeed any section of it, should not adopt any policies on specific solutions to climate change, but should merely gather together the broadest possible alliance to demand an effective international treaty. This isn’t really tenable, since people do want solutions and rightly so. But we couldn’t resolve that issue at yesterday’s conference, although we will need to resolve it somehow.

So, where do we go from here? The working group set up by the conference (which is open to anyone who wants to come, so come to it) will meet at 11am on 1st March at ULU to continue to organize; for example we are aiming to hold CCC fringe meetings at as many union conferences as possible. But we also do need to discuss in detail how we develop working class solutions to this crisis. I agree with Bill that we should start planning a recall conference, and one which has fewer platform speakers and much more time for discussion and debate.

If you want to be added to the e-list send me your email address to [email protected]

 

[poster342002]

Good!
I think the effort to build an environmental movement in the trade unions is crucial.

When the TU movement manages to get it's members more than pisspoor, below-inflation pay awards and improves their track record in supporting members against bullying bosses, then they can faff aroudn with extra issues like this.

 

[cockneyrebel]

When the TU movement manages to get it's members more than pisspoor, below-inflation pay awards and improves their track record in supporting members against bullying bosses, then they can faff aroudn with extra issues like this.

Yes and no. As said in the report above PR did make the point that until the unions are rebuilt and reclaimed then pushing for any real changes, let alone taking on climate change will be extremely difficult. The SWP came back with their usual "we have to be positive, don't be negative", which I find increasingly irritating. On one hand you don't want to be doom and gloom, but that's not what facing up the problems is about.

We have seen historically low strike figures, nearly all the recent major strikes have been defeated (like UNISON on pensions and CWU on pension, pay and conditions). Indeed the RMT is the only union, through showing it will take proper industrial action, that has consistently won its disputes.

But the rot goes deep. In many so-called unionised workplaces there are either no stewards or stewards who are on paper only. More often than not there are no union notice boards, no members meetings, no rank and file link up etc

In the 1920s the old CPGB said we needed a "turn to the unions" and the same applies now. But it can't be done by gimmicks, or top heavy conferences or slogans but will require co-ordination and a lot of hard graft.

On the other hand that doesn't mean that climate change is an "extra issue". It's something that will result in millions of deaths (99.9% of who will be the working class) and devastation around the globe. Taking on these issues through the trade unions and getting stuff like green reps might get people engaged in the unions, especially younger people. It's not an either, or.

But I did make the point at the conference that until the unions get their house in order and get rid of the Brown/Blair supporting massively paid general secretaries and the bureaucracy that goes with them then we're gonna have trouble achieving any major changes.

Which makes it even more odd that some on here seem content to write off union/workplace struggle and concentrate just on community work.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

When the TU movement manages to get it's members more than pisspoor, below-inflation pay awards and improves their track record in supporting members against bullying bosses, then they can faff aroudn with extra issues like this.

Perhaps if the trade unions became more political taking up wider issues more members would feel inspired to get involved in the issues you mention. I knowsome people who say that they find their union meetings so tedious and petty that they stopped going. I know several young union reps who cut their teeth on anti-capitalist and anti-war protest and were inspired to get involved in workplace struggle.

It's actually the same union bureaucrats who sell out their members because of their links with Labour who also adopt this attitude of not taking up wider political issues.

 

[poster342002]

Yes and no. As said in the report above PR did make the point that until the unions are rebuilt and reclaimed then pushing for any real changes, let alone taking on climate change will be extremely difficult. The SWP came back with their usual "we have to be positive, don't be negative", which I find increasingly irritating. On one hand you don't want to be doom and gloom, but that's not what facing up the problems is about.
We have seen historically low strike figures, nearly all the recent major strikes have been defeated (like UNISON on pensions and CWU on pension, pay and conditions). Indeed the RMT is the only union, through showing it will take proper industrial action, that has consistently won its disputes.

But the rot goes deep. In many so-called unionised workplaces there are either no stewards or stewards who are on paper only. More often than not there are no union notice boards, no members meetings, no rank and file link up etc
In the 1920s the old CPGB said we needed a "turn to the unions" and the same applies now. But it can't be done by gimmicks, or top heavy conferences or slogans but will require co-ordination and a lot of hard graft.

On the other hand that doesn't mean that climate change is an "extra issue". It's something that will result in millions of deaths (99.9% of who will be the working class) and devastation around the globe. Taking on these issues through the trade unions and getting stuff like green reps might get people engaged in the unions, especially younger people. It's not an either, or.

But I did make the point at the conference that until the unions get their house in order and get rid of the Brown/Blair supporting massively paid general secretaries and the bureaucracy that goes with them then we're gonna have trouble achieving any major changes.

Which makes it even more odd that some on here seem content to write off union/workplace struggle and concentrate just on community work.

Agree with most of that post. Especially the bits I've bolded.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Perhaps if the trade unions became more political taking up wider issues more members would feel inspired to get involved in the issues you mention. I knowsome people who say that they find their union meetings so tedious and petty that they stopped going. I know several young union reps who cut their teeth on anti-capitalist and anti-war protest and were inspired to get involved in workplace struggle.

It's actually the same union bureaucrats who sell out their members because of their links with Labour who also adopt this attitude of not taking up wider political issues.

Udo this was similar to what the SWP said at the conference and I think it dodges the problems I've raised above. It's almost like a fear that if we face up to how bad the problems are then it will demoralise everyone. But what will definately demoralise people is if we're not honest about where we're at and where we need to go.

I got involved in politics through the anti-capitalist movement and became a union rep when I was a housing trainee (they kinda went hand in hand). But what really get peoples involved in the union is when members see their unions doing something and see them as militant, fighting organisations.

 

[poster342002]

Udo this was similar to what the SWP said at the conference and I think it dodges the problems I've raised above. It's almost like a fear that if we face up to how bad the problems are then it will demoralise everyone. But what will definately demoralise people is if we're not honest about where we're at and where we need to go.

I got involved in politics through the anti-capitalist movement and became a union rep when I was a housing trainee (they kinda went hand in hand). But what really get peoples involved in the union is when members see their unions doing something and see them as militant, fighting organisations.

Again, agree withmuch of this - although I don't share your optimism in the last paragraph. I've worked in areas with a top-notch union branch adn excellent reps who tried their very best to get people involved, ran campaignd to fight on all sorts of bread-&-butter workpalce issues and everything. Membership remained obstinately apthetic, would defend and support attacks on their own working conditions and majority-scabbed through every strike called. It all went in one ear and out the other - all the demonstarted examples, evidience... everything would ignored or forgotton the minute a propoganader sheet was isued by the top management.

You can't deal with that level of proud stupidity, tbh. There's sod-all you can do with people who take pride in being a doormat.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Again, agree withmuch of this - although I don't share your optimism in the last paragraph. I've worked in areas with a top-notch union branch adn excellent reps who tried their very best to get people involved, ran campaignd to fight on all sorts of bread-&-butter workpalce issues and everything. Membership remained obstinately apthetic, would defend and support attacks on their own working conditions and majority-scabbed through every strike called. It all went in one ear and out the other - all the demonstarted examples, evidience... everything would ignored or forgotton the minute a propoganader sheet was isued by the top management.

You can't deal with that level of proud stupidity, tbh. There's sod-all you can do with people who take pride in being a doormat.

It does seem that defeats have ground you down and made you cynical. All I'd say is that perhaps it's better to stand aside and say nothing if you think everything will just end in defeat, because if there is nothing positive or constructive to add all you will do is demoralise others. I don't mean this as a dig I just think we have to start from somewhere and saying nothing can be done not only doesn't help it actually makes things worse.

There is no doubt it will be a long, hard slog to turn the unions around and the SWPs rarara politics won't help.

The RMT is a union that has shown what can be done and how members will respond in a positive way.

Fair enough it's not the same as the 19th century as we have years of social democracy, stalinism, union sell outs and defeats to overcome. But we have to start from somewhere and things can be done. I know my union branch is slowly making progress and we are starting to achieve real things.

 

[glenquagmire]

Fair enough it's not the same as the 19th century as we have years of social democracy, stalinism, union sell outs and defeats to overcome. But we have to start from somewhere and things can be done. I know my union branch is slowly making progress and we are starting to achieve real things.

Hang on, once you take out the social democrats (most union members) and the Stalinists (most union beureacrats), who are left? Just the Trotskyist groups?

As a left social democrat who has never sold a member out on anything, I slightly resent being lumped in with the Stalinists and the Prentises of this world.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Hang on, once you take out the social democrats (most union members) and the Stalinists (most union beureacrats), who are left? Just the Trotskyist groups?

As a left social democrat who has never sold a member out on anything, I slightly resent being lumped in with the Stalinists and the Prentises of this world.

Trotskyism is an utter irrelevance at the moment (and I say that as someone whose ideas are in that tradition) and also I'm not saying that every left social democrat is sell out scum or whatever.

But the fact is that social democracy as a whole has sold out the working class again and again, in much the same way as stalinism and union bureaucracies has. Whether it's sending millions to their deaths in imperialist wars, being in the pocket of big business or siding with bosses to sell out workers struggles.

Just as there are stalinists who are well meaning people, the same goes for social democracy. But both traditions have utterly sold out the working class.

 

[glenquagmire]

But to indiscriminately lump all social democrats in with those who supported WW1 and those who side with bosses in struggles is as lazy and inaccurate as putting all Marxists in the same category as Kim Jong-Il or whatever.

You know that there have always been left social democrats who opposed all of those things and do yourself no favours with dismissive reference like that above to those who are on your side.

 

[cockneyrebel]

But to indiscriminately lump all social democrats in with those who supported WW1 and those who side with bosses in struggles is as lazy and inaccurate as putting all Marxists in the same category as Kim Jong-Il or whatever.

You know that there have always been left social democrats who opposed all of those things and do yourself no favours with dismissive reference like that above to those who are on your side.

It depends what you mean. Those marxists who supported Kim Jong are stalinists. And at the end of the day, despite the fact that you get well meaning stalinists, as a political ideology it has been utterly bankrupt for the working class and has the blood of millions on its hands.

The same goes for social democracy. It is an ideology that seeks to manage capitalism and ultimately has served the interests of the ruling class. I'm not saying that every social democrat sees it that way, but in my view that is the history of their collective ideology. That doesn't mean I wouldn't work with social democrats, or think they are all sell-out scum.

 

[glenquagmire]

Taking your original quote ("we have years of social democracy, stalinism, union sell outs and defeats to overcome), it rather sounds as though you see social democrats as the enemy. Whether or not you intended that to be the case, similar sentiments uttered to social democrat comrades are hardly likely to engender a sense of comradeship and to draw people towards your side in the struggle.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Sorry if I sounded uncomradely, I didn't mean to.

But in terms of social democracy being the enemy it depends what you mean. As with stalinism it is an ideology that has utterly betrayed the working class and has the blood of millions on its hands (sorry to sound melodramatic but that's how I see it). But there are many left social democrats who are good people and who I would gladly work alongside despite thinking their ideology is totally wrong.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Quite a good conference. Agree with CR that the union movement needs rebuilding but that not only is this not counterposed to fighting climate change but that fighting on political issues such as climate change might well bring in new members and activists into both union and community politics.

Another report also from http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1918

It was a good start to a wider process, a useful first step in the right direction. Sure it had its limitations, more on which later, that are largely the limitations of the left scene in Britain today.

But overall we should use its strengths and the relative enthusiasm and relatively high numbers to begin building real campaigns in the unions and workplaces to address this serious issue and to inject class political analysis into the debates and actions.

The first 'workshop' I attended was the same one Dan went to. The top table was pretty poor but the discussion afterwards had some dynamism, as Dan points out, with several speakers- us included of course- calling on the need for demonstrations and direct action in a re-elaborated and refocused anti-capitalist movement.

Importantly, we weren't the only people saying this and though there was a range of opinions (in itself a good thing) our suggestions seemed to go down pretty well.

The second workshop after lunch on transport was more promising still with Cat Hobbs from Campaign For Better Transport giving an interesting speech on how a planned integrated transport system geared to meet people's not profit's could make transport much greener. Also she gave some examples of how community mobilisations like the Bristol rail passengers' fare strike can play a role in getting the services we need.

Unjum Mirza, RMT officer and SWP member also gave a reasonable account of how rail services could be massively improved- electrification of the line, the introduction of high speed services and other features.
The discussion was a fruitful exploration of how we could plan for better services in all sorts of areas- local hospitals, local low-cost housing, etc, integrated low-cost or free public transport, cycle lanes, time off and subsidies for low carbon travelling to and from work. All of this instead of the market that by having uneven house prices, uneven services such as schools and adding millions of pounds worth of food miles gobbles up the environment and provides a worse lifestyle for us all.


There was also a debate about congestion charges and higher or even prohibitive taxation on aviation and car use. Some, like Cat Hobbs, strongly advocated these. Others, including myself, disagreed. In the absence at least of other measures a congestion charge is simple a regressive tax on working class commuters many of whom have to travel by car to work. If say a £5 daily charge was introduced in Manchester for example this would amount to an effective 15% pay cut for those on minimum wage or about 5-7% on the average working class wage. A much better solution would be to have free public transport under local democratic control and other measures such as free bikes for workers, safe cycle lanes and perhaps electric car share schemes. If working class management planning committees needed also to adopt a congestion charge to limit road use then this could of course be considered as other options would be available: I suspect however that if high quality other transport options were available then this wouldn't be needed. After all, spending an hour and a half a day in a metal box in crawling traffic is hardly anyone's idea of fun whereas a combination of cycling and letting the train take the strain is so much more relaxing!

Although only a few speakers made it explicit, the cross-cutting theme of all the discussion items was really about how democratic socialist planning. It therefore shows the importance of transitional demands in our politics- we should mobilise in workplaces and communities for cheap or free public services under the democratic control of the working class service users ourselves.

All of which made it slightly frustrating that in the final session we were not allowed to vote on amendments as this would be (in the words of an SWP speaker) 'too prescriptive'. If the point had been made that this was not a delegate resolution based conference and if the amendments were on tricky and controversial subjects such as nuclear power (over which arguably a much fuller debate and discussion would be needed) then may be fair enough- but then why, bizarrely, ask for amendments only to rule one was OK and to be added and that four were out of order. What made it even more bizarre was that none of the proposals were controversial- renationalise public transport, support indigenous peoples in the rainforests, support workers' activity and support the demand that employers install bike sheds. Obviously this last one was judged a demand too far!

This perhaps brings me on to the limitations of the conference- although there was plenty of interesting discussion and some enthusiasm about what we have to and indeed can do to tackle catastrophic climate change there was little or no active planning of how to execute actual really existing community and workplace campaigns. However, it was certainly a welcome step in the right direction and something to build on.

Over the coming weeks, months and years our task is clear- organise in workplaces to connect bread and butter issues, such as the right to organise, such as better and more comfortable working conditions, basic health and safety, subsidies to encourage greener working and travelling with the desire of many workers, particularly the young, to change and save the world. By connecting mundane and grand issues by a series of transitional demands that can link fights for immediate gains with the fight for workers' control and socialism, we can begin to win a new generation to the ideas of workers' action and socialism in practice.

Liam's site also has good discussion as highlighted by several posters.

 

[urbanrevolt]

By the way I should point out in relation to above that I accept the explanantion that Roy Wilkes gives on the amendments and the important point is to move forward perhaps with among other things a recall conference in the future that can take and preciculate amendments

We should defintely work with social democratic workers in a united front struggle over such an urgent matter as this and I would therefore oppose making the campaign explicitly socialist. However, I strongly believe that only working class and community mobilisation fighting for democratic socialist planning can begin to make a difference on an issue as weighty as climate change.

 

[junius]

By the way I should point out in relation to above that I accept the explanantion that Roy Wilkes gives on the amendments and the important point is to move forward perhaps with among other things a recall conference in the future that can take and preciculate amendments

We should defintely work with social democratic workers in a united front struggle over such an urgent matter as this and I would therefore oppose making the campaign explicitly socialist. However, I strongly believe that only working class and community mobilisation fighting for democratic socialist planning can begin to make a difference on an issue as weighty as climate change.

I'm surprised urban. Why tie a movement of the labour movement to a set of aims that isn't explicitly socialist? It means that actually the dominant politics of any campaign are those of the trade union bureaucrats and jokes like Meacher. Marxism is effectively gagged in official debate.

If you think you have the strategy which is necessary for the victory of a particular movement, then advocate those politics.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Obviously I think socialist planning- the mobilisation fo the working class and services run by working class communities- is the only solution- in fact I said so explicitly in the post you quoted. We should certainly oppose the politics ogf the TU bureacracy! All I'm saying is that we should have a united front with the working class, organising around the main points of action, openly arguing for our politics but not saying we will only work with revolutionary socialists- we need to work with much wider forces and in the process of such united front work win workers to the idea that workers should run society and that only an emergency plan can prevent further catastrophic climate change and begin to mitigate the effects that are already irreversible.

 

[junius]

Of course, Urban. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't campaign in an organisation for an explicitly socialist environmental programme in order to combat climate change.

How else do you combat climate change?

It's not like an issue like abortion. It is quite possible to achieve full abortion rights in a capitalist society. Consequently, it would be unnecessary to polarise that movement on the basis of whether others advocate an explicitly socialist programme for women's liberation.

Similarly, with an issue like gay rights its perfectly feasible to organise a cross-class campaign involving bourgeois parties as the achievement of equal rights is feasible under capitalism. Just look at the reforms of the past decade.

There is a difference between these issues and one of such gigantic scope as climate change.

 

[urbanrevolt]

You may be right. You're definitely right that we need socialism to deal with the effects of climate change and the intervention of the organised working class to force change.

I'm not even quite sure what i was responding to originally. The point I'm trying to make though is that we should have a campaign called something like trade unionists against the effects of climate change rather than trade unionists for socialism because whilst we do want to win workers to socialism and indeed have an organisation of socialists (e.g. a party or socialist organisation) we also want to include others who are not yet explicitly socialist

 

[urbanrevolt]

Intersting comment on this from the pr website.

If we want a trade union charter on climate change then we need to involve the trade union movement in an ongoing debate. 300 people, excellent thought that was, is not enough - we need much wider engagement in this issue. And as for "taking up the aim of socialism" -I don't give a monkey's whether people do that. The Labour Party has done that for over a century and where did that get us?

We need commitments to action. And when we are involved in action we will be able to argue about solutions, the difference between reforms and revolution, the need for planning and revolutionary socialism. But let's not ask everyone to sign a pledge of good intentions!