Originally appeared in Inqaba Ya Basebenzi No. 7 (August 1982)
by Rocco Malgas and Paul Storey
In mountaineering, the dangers in a false step become the greater the higher up a cliff one succeeds in going. So it is in the class struggle, where all kinds of unforeseen barriers, crumbling footholds and sudden high winds imperil the unwary climber.
The growing power of black workers organised in the independent unions – now 300,000 altogether – is the single most important advance in the past ten turbulent years. The ability of the workers to build their own strong organisations through repeated militant struggles establishes the working class, not in theory but in visible fact, as the decisive force that can challenge the power of the ruling class and show a way forward to all the oppressed.
This very fact gives the question of trade union unity a significance that goes far wider than the union members and immediate union issues. With the economic climate worsening sharply, with the bosses and the state preparing new attacks, the breakdown of efforts to unite the unions in a single independent federation endangers the progress of the entire movement.
Union leaders bear a responsibility as never before to all oppressed and exploited people to ensure that the obstacles to unity are overcome.
207 strikes and stoppages in 1980; 342 in 1981 – the bald official statistics show something of the rising scale of workers’ actions, but not the courage, tenacity and changed psychology of the working class which in fact they represent.
Already this year more than 200 strikes have taken place: among them the nationwide stoppage by 100,000 workers to protest Neil Aggett’s murder; the metal and engineering strikes which brought 120,000 out in the East Rand; the unprecedented wage strikes involving possibly 70,000 mineworkers on nine gold mines; and now the hard-fought strike in the motor assembly plants of the Eastern Cape.
Workers have begun to sense the immense potential power in their own hands, if only they can combine in full-strength against the bosses and the state. This is the basis of the tremendous enthusiasm of the rank-and-file workers for trade union unity.
When the first unity conference took place in Cape Town in August last year, such was the pressure of the ranks that not a single leader of any union seriously involved in struggle could oppose it. The few that stayed away felt obliged at least to declare support for unity “in principle”.
The path from the first conference posed before the unions the problem of how to organise unity: how to meet together, build together, discuss and decide together in a democratic and disciplined way the appropriate actions.
The inter-union solidarity committees formed as a result of the conference took shape in only a few areas. This reflected no lack of support for the idea by the union members, but more the uncertainty over how to use these committees and where they should lead.
In the months that followed, the unions continued to chew-over the unity question, while all the time being stretched in action as strikes brought thousands of new recruits into their ranks.
Growth
All the major independent unions have grown rapidly, some on firmer foundations than others, with vigorous factory committees and a developed system of elected shop stewards.
By November 1981, for example, Fosatu – the biggest of the independent federations – reached 95,000 members, up 35,000 in a single year.
Of this increase, nearly half was provided by the growth of the Metal and Allied Workers’ Union.
This militant union, whose Transvaal branch alone is now 26,000 strong, shows that the backbone for a fighting labour movement comes from the heavy battalions of the industrial workers.
This changing composition of Fosatu, combining with the stormy struggles of the period and the heightened confidence of the membership, has produced a shake-up of leadership within the federation – encouraging it to begin to address the tasks of the workers’ movement not simply in their narrower economic ambit, but also in the wider struggle for a state and society controlled by workers.
While the development in Fosatu shows it most clearly, all the mass organisations with genuine roots in the factories have been under increasing, pressure of the workers either to evolve towards the left, or to hold firmly to that course.
The line-of-march of the working class brings it inevitably into bigger and more decisive confrontations with the combined forces of the bosses, and with the state which shelters them.
This makes united trade union organisation imperative – while simultaneously making it all the harder to achieve.
The toughest obstacles to unity are not so much the specific differences between union leaderships over tactical and organisational questions, but rather the conflicting political directions – or tendencies – which these differences are known to express.
Underlying the disputes over registration, industrial councils, non-racialism, demarcation, etc., is the question of the tasks and strategy of the working class in the struggle to overthrow the regime, eliminate apartheid, and destroy the dictatorship of the capitalists.
Because the SA workers have no mass party of their own; and because the ANC is not yet the mass force of organised workers which in time it will become – the unions themselves have inevitably become the forum in which the political tasks of the class are most directly confronted and argued-out, in open and veiled ways, within the movement.
Neither the industrial nor the political tasks of the workers’ movement can be carried forward by a multiplicity of small organisations pulling in different directions – and even a hundred thousand members is really a tiny organisation in a labour force of nine million and compared with the immense power of the enemy.
That is why the speech of Fosatu general secretary Joe Foster, endorsed by its Congress in April this year, was correct to acknowledge the political character of the trade unions’ existence – and to link this to a call for the formation of a single, united trade union federation.
The Wilgespruit conference of fifteen unions and federations, which met two weeks later, was thus presented with an unavoidable choice: begin to translate the earlier, tentative moves and talks about unity into concrete organisation – or crystallise the differences into rival federations and groupings.
What was on the one hand a tremendous opportunity for common advance, thus carried within it on the other hand the chemical elements for a crisis of disunity if the opportunity was not grasped.
The walkout by the Macwusa delegation – not in itself crucial because of the very small size of this union – was nevertheless a very important symptom. For, by the time of the July ‘summit’, it was clear that a major rift had opened-up.
Discussions broke down with a number of union leaders, among them the representatives of the vitally important Saawu, refusing to participate in common organisation with unions which are either registered or take part in industrial councils.
Essentially, this means a refusal to unite with Fosatu.
It must be stated without mincing words that this standpoint is a mistake.
Intransigence
An intransigent attitude against political compromise with the bosses and the regime is the greatest quality of strength in a workers’ leadership.
But ‘intransigence’ hides a weakness when it manifests itself in defiant postures, hasty splitting and ultimatums directed towards other organisations in which large bodies of our fellow workers are organising to carry on a genuine and determined fight.
Every union activist rightly and jealously guards the achievements of his or her own organisation built at the cost of lives and livelihoods under the constant menacing pressure of the bosses and their police state. In South African conditions, differences over policy – even differences of detail – can be felt as life-or-death issues affecting possibly the whole future of the unions.
But the vital struggle for correct policies must be carried on as a struggle to win the conscious support of the mass of workers, first and foremost the organised workers. To do this successfully – to avoid the mountaineer’s false step – a clear perspective of the path ahead of the movement is necessary.
The current breakdown of the efforts towards trade union unity results most of all from an insufficiently thought-out perspective: a vision that is too narrow and too short-term.
Main Task
With only a fraction of industrial workers organised (hardly one-tenth of African industrial workers), the main task of building the trade unions still lies before us. Millions of workers remain to be recruited and united in struggle – not in the dim and distant future, but in the years immediately ahead.
The incapacity of capitalism to ease the yoke of exploitation and poverty on the shoulders of the working people; the inability of the regime to concede reforms of any real significance to workers – these inescapable facts guarantee a fiery future for the independent trade union movement and will frustrate the hopes of reformist elements within the union leaderships to achieve a stable accommodation with the ruling class.
Placed in this context, the attempt of some militant unionists to preserve seemingly ‘correct positions’ in the splendid isolation of little organisations is obviously absurd. Correct positions must be fought for and won within the broadest ranks of the workers organising for action.
By its nature, every trade union strives to include all workers employed in the industry or area where it chooses to organise, and not just those who agree precisely with the politics of the union leaders. This is necessary for effectiveness in industrial action, just as a strike committee has to try to bring out all workers regardless of their differing viewpoints.
Unions have to have clear policies, democratically decided by the membership – but unions are not themselves revolutionary parties or cadre organisations. It would lead to fatal mistakes and the fragmenting of the trade union movement if union leaders were to treat ‘their’ respective organisations as an exclusive preserve of the adherents of this or that political standpoint within the movement.
To galvanise unorganised workers for the struggle, to maintain confidence, to achieve and sustain leadership by the working class at the head of all the oppressed, it is necessary for the trade union movement to march as a united army of labour, and not sink its forces in the quicksands of disunity.
This is not at all to suggest that differences should be shelved.
It is an essential part of trade union democracy that the holders of differing views among the workers – not only on occasional, specific issues, but also contending political tendencies – must be able to put their case freely within all the unions; subject only to the practical necessity that the will of the majority prevails when decisions are made, and minorities abide loyally by the discipline of such decisions while continuing, if they wish, to argue for a change.
Provided democracy is to be scrupulously upheld within the proposed new federation, what possible argument could there be for any union leadership, genuinely fighting for the interests of the working class, to refuse to join?
To take a specific example: Saawu, GWU and Mawu have arisen from different origins, have followed different methods of organisation, and their leaders adhere to differing policy positions on some issues. But it would be impossible to find a single sound reason why the fighting ranks of these unions should be kept separated.
In fact, looking to the future, is it not clear that the workers of these unions, perhaps more than any others, once organised together, would provide the central dynamo of a militant united federation capable of drawing the workers of all sectors into it?
Initiative
The initiative being taken by the GWU towards practical co-operation in the metal and engineering industry with Mawu deserves the fullest support. It ought to be made clear throughout the movement that this, and the other ‘demarcation’ arrangements decided on, are intended as a move towards the single federation of industrial unions, so setting an unambiguous example to others.
In the 1970s when the building of the new unions began, the choice between forming general unions and unions confined within single industries seemed an important issue of strategic difference. But the successful growth of the unions along both these lines (for example, GWU on the one hand; Fosatu unions on the other) has brought us willy-nilly within a few years to the practical solution of the matter.
Marx loved the saying of Goethe, “Theory is grey, but the tree of life is evergreen.”
All should now be able to see the need for one united organisation within each industry, combining in one national organisation of all workers. What would be the real difference between one ‘general union’ with developed industrial sub-structures, and a ‘tight federation’ of industrial unions with strong inter-union councils for discussion and decision-making at local and national levels?
By the end of last year Fosatu already had seventeen functioning inter-union ‘locals’, while both Saawu and GWU have recently indicated that industrial-based unionism would no longer be a problem for them.
One of the obstacles raised against entry into the ‘tight’ federation proposed by Fosatu is the expressed desire of individual unions to retain their ‘autonomy’.
The trade union movement requires both autonomy and centralism. It requires autonomy in the sense that, within each industry, each area, indeed each factory, there should be the greatest possible self-management by the organised workers of their own immediate affairs.
A fighting, democratic labour movement depends on initiative, and nothing stifles this more than the bureaucratic mentality that everything of the slightest significance must be referred for decision ‘somewhere else’.
But ‘autonomy’ should not be used to justify free-lancing. The workers’ movement stands or falls by its ability to mobilise the greatest numbers in all areas in action together, with united demands, a common strategy and at times also a single line of tactical command. Thus a democratic structure of central worker leadership and decision-making is essential to the advance of the trade union movement – and those who stand against this on the argument of ‘autonomy’ would be standing against the very need of the workers to deploy against the enemy their full strength.
Undeniably it will be difficult, even with the best will on all sides, to achieve complete agreement on a constitution for the founding of a united federation. But it would be a mistake to allow this to become the main focus of attention, exaggerating the obstacles to a working compromise.
Practical Need
Over and over again it will be shown that no important question in the life of the workers’ movement is finally settled by formulas and rules. In every organisation genuinely run by workers, it is the workers’ practical need for effectiveness in action which ultimately governs everything.
Thus, for example, Fosatu’s constitution recently had to be amended to recognise the area shop stewards’ councils, which have arisen to play an increasing role of leadership within the federation, and, to establish democratic regional congresses.
In the same way, within a new united federation, democracy and a correct balance between autonomy and centralism would depend far more on the strength and militancy of the workers organised within it than on its constitution.
The tragedy today is that differences between union leaders are being turned into a gulf between unions at the very moment that the movement is facing a period of greater hardships and uphill battles even to defend its previous gains. The working class has never needed trade union unity more.
The recent quick growth of the unions, accompanying the mounting waves of strikes, took place against a background of sharp expansion of the capitalist economy – reaching an unprecedented growth of production of 8% in 1980-81. The anxiety of the bosses not to lose output at such a time; their ability more easily to afford wage increases and other concessions; the hiring of additional labour – all gave rise to a heightened confidence and combativity of the workers, which spread and was reinforced through successful action.
Since the last part of 1981, however, the economy has begun to slide again into recession. By the second quarter of this year, the squeeze was visible in all branches of production. This has meant reduction of overtime; redundancies; and the hardening of the bosses’ attitude in dealing with workers. Mass dismissals again become their first weapon against strikes.
Economic growth for 1981-82 could fall to about 1%, with an actual drop in production expected for 1982-83. The downturn is thought likely to last at least two years, and possibly much longer.
Because the ruling class confront a more organised and determined working class than ever before, they have to calculate more carefully before launching a major assault against the unions. But for the same reason the crackdown, when the ground for it has been prepared, is likely to be all the more savage.
One sign of the preparations is the power taken by the state to treat industrial action as ‘sabotage’, with striking punishable by 20 years imprisonment. Another sign is the use of the Intimidation Act, probably as a test, against strikers at Richards Bay.
A sense of the change in the period has been creeping into the marrow of all the union activists over much of the past year. Tensing themselves for the harsh confrontations ahead, they have tended to become more rigid towards other unions in which opposing policies prevail.
Divisions
Taking a resolute stand on ‘principle’ – today, in fact, even tactical differences are being awarded this title – we can forget that the bosses’ own first ‘principle’ of struggle is to manipulate divisions and drive wedges into the workers’ ranks. In this way they single out groups of workers for step-by-step attack, something which can be prevented only by determined unity of the workers for mutual self-defence.
Therefore it is vital to pursue with patience, and with all possible speed, the unification of the independent unions in one federation.
The leaders of Fosatu should not, out of a feeling of exasperation, now limit their approach only to “those unions whose actions have to date shown serious commitment” to unity – apparently “satisfied” to leave the rest (their leaders and their rank-and-file alike!) to the judgement of “history”. History is capable of being equally ruthless with all parts of a divided labour movement.
Also, just because a united federation has been proposed, there is not the slightest reason to throw out of the window the idea of a trade union united front. It is necessary as never before to have a programme of basic demands agreed by the unions and a joint campaign of action on this basis.
Even in the midst of a heated argument, don’t two neighbours instantly join forces against a robber’s attack? That is exactly the approach that the workers of all the independent unions will take to the matter, if it is posed without ultimatums and preconditions.
Workers are not interested in paper unity, but in unity for purposes of action. A campaign of united action will help to raise the pressure within all the unions for lasting organisational links.
Moreover, it will provide the workers with the means to test-out in practice all policies, principles and leaderships, and should be welcomed by all sides in the current disputes within the union movement.
The arguments against industrial councils and registration can be driven home, not simply by theory, but by bringing to light in the practical struggle the obstacles to effectiveness which they are designed to impose.
Already, as a result of the current motor industry strike, Naawu has withdrawn from the Industrial Council for the motor industry because the workers refused to be crippled by the arbitration procedure which membership of the IC made compulsory.
A campaign of united action would serve to test before the workers the correctness of the policy of non-racialism and show that it is not – as some allege – a sign of weak-kneed liberalism in the unions, but a vital part of class-consciousness; a determination of workers to unite with their class brothers and sisters against all the divisive racial barriers erected by the apartheid state.
A campaign of united action would serve to drive from their hide-outs and expose before the workers the reformist, compromising elements within the union leaderships – elements which exist not only in non-racial unions but also in unions with an exclusively black leadership.
Practical Agreement
There should be no obstacles to reaching practical agreement on:
- Joint measures to fight redundancies;
- A mutual defence pact against victimisations and arrests of trade unionists, which would immediately serve as a warning to the state;
- A joint campaign for a national minimum wage to mobilise the unorganised into the unions.
A national conference to discuss these issues should be urgently considered.
Success in implementing a national programme of action, and the building from this of a national federation of all workers, would be a stride forward not only for the workers presently organised in the independent unions. It would advance the struggle of the whole working class and of all the oppressed.
© Transcribed from the original by the Marxist Workers Party (2019).
