Spain: Fight for the soul of the union The Sixth Congress of Spain's main trade union "critical sector". It will be a close contest. Whichever confederation CC.OO. takes place on 17- 20 January. current dominates, the minority will continue to have a For the first time, the present majority faces a full substantial influence. Jesus Albarracin and Pedro counter-programme, prepared by the radical left Montes report from Madrid.
THE
POLITICAL
AND economic changes of the last few years have had a negative effect on trade unions and on working class struggles all over Europe.
On the one hand, the events in the East - the collapse of the USSR and of the Soviet bloc - have provoked an ideological retreat of the left and a weakening of its forces. The absence of a social project embodying an alternative to capitalism has demoralized militants and, by depriving them of a liberating perspective, has weakened the momentum and intensity of many struggles.
On the other hand, the crisis of capitalism, neoliberal economic policies, technology and new
"globalization" have gravely affected the labor movement through the growth of unemployment, the deepening of job insecurity, the "flexibilization " of labor relations and the ever growing fear of losing one's job.
Working class demobilization has deep, objective causes.
The bourgeoisie, seeking to avail itself of this new international situation and of the devastating effects of the crisis, has launched an offensive against labor legislation and market regulations. This offensive endangers the historical conquests of the working class while also fostering a growing disarray within the traditional sectors of the class, weakening our solidarities, and promoting our atomization.
Insecurity and fear have installed themselves in the world of labor.
Significant sectors have been marginalized. Factors which promote division and disintegration have become more visible, and divergent or sectoral interests are more keenly felt than our collective interests.
As a result of these transformations, the labor movement faces great difficulties in defending itself and advancing new demands. It must face those obstacles without the stimulus which had been generated by the belief that there existed an alternative social model, within which the development of the productive forces was at the service of the wellbeing of present and future generations. In spite of its sinister degeneration, such was the space "really existing socialism" occupied in the consciousness of many workers.
Neoliberalism has now achieved a degree of hegemony that cannot be ignored. Its theories and arguments have deeply permeated society, including many left currents considerable and sectors of the trade union movement. It has succeeded in turning its underlying values, and proposals objectives into the parameters within which the problems which affect many countries are approached.
Then there are the consequences for the labor movement of the break-up of the social reform policies, which were made largely possible by the intense economic growth of the postwar period and which can be seen as culminating in the notion of the welfare state. The same welfare state which is now under siege by the neoliberal offensive.
In general terms, the trade union movement has adapted badly to these changes. This has contributed to its decreased influence in society and to a weakening of the pre-eminent role which the working class has played within the 'social whole'
In the Spanish State, the trade union movement also confronts certain specific problems. The economic crisis has had graver consequences here than in other countries of Europe. It has impinged
November 22, 1995 (translation: R. Bernabe)
January 1996 19
* Spain on a weaker and less productive capitalism, in the context of heightened international competition. The adoption of neo-liberalism by the (ruling) Socialist Party (PSOE), against a background of the European Union and its Maastricht Treaty, has led to extremely harsh and misguided policies, which, adding insult to injury, have been applied in the name of the left. These policies have led to much greater unemployment and labor market deregulation than in other European Union states. This has had deep repercussions in the labor movement, labor relations and the situation of the trade unions.
Those organizations committed to the construction of a world ruled by reason and solidarity, including the trade unions, key actors in the class struggle, are moving against the current in Spanish society. Given their basically reformist role, the trade unions confront a situation in which reforms are blocked and formidable reactionary forces have been unleashed. The offensive launched by capital against the rights and living conditions of the working class seeks to undermine the cohesion of the class, thus attacking the fountainhead of trade unionism. For the reigning neoliberal doctrines, unions constitute an undesirable institution which must be neutralized and reduced to a social and organi-zational mini-mum. It is precisely this situation which fully justifies the struggle for a strong and militant trade unionism, capable of articulating a viable and credible alternative and of morally and ideologically rearming itself to adequately act in accord with the needs and aspirations of the labor movement. Such objectives cannot be attained without a struggle for a more participatory and democratic trade unionism. Present circumstances demand the continuous analysis of complex and changing reality, formulation of the necessary adjustments and understanding of new challenges and problems. Nevertheless the changes that have occurred do not in any way invalidate the fundamental objectives practices or principles of the trade union movement. 20 International Viewpoint nº273
IN THIS UNFAVORABLE CONTEXT, TRADE unions have made certain mistakes in recent years. Their critical support for the Maastricht Treaty (including their refusal to promote a plebiscite on it), the semi-general strike of March 28, 1992 and the fashion in which the unions have entangled themselves in repeated rounds of negotiations - first the "pact of competitiveness" , then the "pact of employment" - were important aspects of a mistaken strategy. Though they pale in comparison with the way in which the general strike of January 27, 1994 was organized, and the tacit policy of social peace which has reigned since.
According to official estimates, participation in the January strike was higher than in the strike of 14 December 1988. This testifies to the capacity of resistance which the labor movement still retains. Nevertheless, seen from a wider perspective, the strike was only an accident within an ongoing process of demobilization.
During the months which preceded the January strike, the CC.OO. and the General Union of Workers (Unión General de Trabajadores - UGT) had been ensnared in a frustrating process of negotiation which led nowhere. Since January, the trade unions have simply turned their backs on the struggle against the labor counter-reform, limiting it to the fight against it in the convenios. With the exception of some sectors where jobs are particularly threatened, paralysis has been the norm within the labor movement.
This paralysis has combined itself with further mistakes of the trade union leadership. These include their complete passivity in the face of privatization; fiscal changes, the "Toledo Plan" and the attacks on the pensions which it will bring; the refusal to join other civic, social and political forces in a common platform; unjustified conflicts with left organizations which have always supported the labor movement; underhanded support of "felipismo". All this have undoubtedly opened the path to new aggressions, lessened the credibility and leadership capacity of the trade unions, and undermined the morale of many trade unionists. As a result, the government of the PSOE has had its hands freed to go forward with its neoliberal project -deepening the labor counter-reform, ransacking the public sector (Iberia, Telefónica, Renfe), generalizing the privatization policy (Repsol, Argentaria), undermining social services (unemployment insurance, health), thus creating the conditions for further attacks on pensions as well as an even deeper labor "flexibilization"
The determinants of the present situation are many and complex. They include the economic crisis and the advance of neoliberalism, which through the growth of unemployment, job instability and the growing fear of losing one's job, has had a devastating effect on the labor movement. Demobilization, therefore, has an objective basis. But that, in itself, cannot explain the return to passivity after a potent general strike. We must also consider the effect of the advance of neoliberal ideas among significant sectors of the working class and its leadership. Mostly, this does not occur because the latter agree with those doctrines, but rather because they have come to accept the world of neoliberalism given, unchangeable reality. For example, while workers don't like the concept of competitiveness, the idea has nevertheless sunk in that if one is going to have a job, one will also have to be competitive. This recognition is only a step away from accepting the government's economic policies, labor-law deregulation or the need for all sorts of restructuring. Such ideas affect the behavior of many left-wing political and trade union leaders, both of the UGT and the CC.OO. And these attitudes in turn generate tensions and conflicts within their organizations.
These conceptions largely permeate the proposals which the present majority in the CC.OO. will try to establish as the official line of the organization at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.
The dominant elements in the otticial proposals break with the CC.OO.'s critical and tighting tradition. Among other things, the majority document proposes an excessive accom modation to the limits imposed by neoliberalism, and refuses to struggle for a more just and caring society. The proposals are permeated by the notion that the neoliberal model of European union, as formulated in the Maastricht Treaty, is inescapable. The majority offers only a weak response to the government's economic, industrial and social policies, including
privatization. There is an implicit acceptance of the labor counter-reform - by relegating the struggle against the new measures to the arena of the convenios).
Such an orientation has organizational consequences. It confirms the role of the unions as actors within the existing system of institutions. The present majority expect to be the decisive element behind the trade unions' influence. They would like to centralize and bureaucratize the unions' decision-making processes, at the expense of wider participation, pluralism, and the autonomy of local and sectoral union bodies. Some CC.OO. leaders have, however, recognised that "one cannot be in the government and the opposition at the same time"
Carrying out these policies demands the neutralization of all criticism, and considerable limitations in internal democracy, and the role and the influence of the rank and file within the union.
Proposed changes in the statutes of the CC.OO. would limit the rights of the members, increase the powers of the apparatus, and eliminate all dissident voices from the executive organs. THE LEFT ALTERNATIVE
The critical sector has elaborated a set of amendments to these proposals. The alternative trade union project acknowledges the difficulties of the present situation, but rejects everything which contradicts the interests of the working class. This project does not renounce the struggle for social transformations and attempts to elaborate an analysis, a program, and the alliances and the methods capable of effectively orienting the struggle to improve the living conditions of the working class. In concrete terms, this means reducing unemployment, defending and extending social services, and abolishing the perverse situation generated by the labor counter-reform.
The starting premises of the critical sector's proposals are a refusal to accept neoliberalism and the ground rules it seeks to impose, and an insistence on the need to struggle for a more just society. This perspective rejects the neoliberal project of construction of the European Union. Instead, the critical sector proposes a referendum after the anticipated revision of the Union Treaty (in 1996).
A referendum would open a debate within society (which was blocked when the Union Treaty was originally approved).
The critical sector proposes an alternative economic policy oriented to the growth of employment and the extension of social protection, radically opposed to the tenets of neoliberalism. It favors an active industrial policy which would promote employment, as well as a re-industrialization policy within which the public sector would play a key role. It favors a systematic defense of the public sector. The issue of the reduction of the working day is taken up through a proposal for a reduction of the work week to 35 hours without loss in pay.
The labor counter-reform is not accepted as an irreversible reality, and its repeal is maintained as an objective which must not be abandoned. An effective mechanism for collective bargaining is proposed. The proposals of the critical sector also promote trade union action at the level of the enterprise while also redefining the relations between the committees and the sections. MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, reconstructing the social networks of the left as well as rearming them ideologically is retained as a main general objective. The potential of the class struggle as a means of radically changing society is retained as a key notion, a notion which the role of the unions as negotiating and bargaining organizations does not disprove In terms of autonomy, pluralism, democracy and participation, the changes in the statutes proposed by the critical sector would pass any democratic test. They contradict the centralizing and bureaucratizing proposals of the majority, while seeking to deepen the model of a participative and democratic trade unionism, which until now has been one of the distinguishing features of the CC.OO. It relies on a growing activity and empowerment of the enterprise committees, the juntas de personal and the union sections and it favors the development of direct forms of rank and file participation through assemblies, consultations and the elaboration of decisions from below. It favors the adoption of stable criteria, which could only be modified by majority vote, to govern the structure and election of all leadership bodies, thus preventing the formation of
Spain * homogenized executive organs which would threaten pluralism. It advances several measures which would increase the weight of the principle of proportional representation in the election of the Consejo Confederal (leading council) of the CC.OO.
In other words, the organizational project of the critical sector implies a commitment to the modernization of the CC.OO. as well as its adaptation to the existing situation through a deepening, not abandonment, of its original characteristics. Such an unhesitant commitment to trade union democracy can only be conceived as part of a wider orientation whose programmatic objectives correspond to the immediate and the historical interests of the working class and which, furthermore, considers both mobilization and struggle as key elements of trade union action.
International Viewpoint goes to press before the Sixth Congress of CC.OO. It is too early to draw any conclusions. Nevertheless, it is possible to advance certain considerations in the light of the pre-congress discussions. CC.OO. IS NOT JUST ANY UNION. Compared to trade unions which exist in other European states it retains several sharply defined distinctive features. It was organized and consolidated during the clandestine struggle against the dictatorship. It brought together the most militant and combative workers. Democracy, pluralism and a socio-political conception of trade unionism, are key features of the organization. In spite of the mistakes it has committed since 1977, for a majority of the workers CC.OO. is still the state-wide mass organization that could deliver a mobilizing response to the government's and the bosses' offensive while decisively contributing to the laying of the conditions necessary for building a radically different society.
It is not easy to transform such an organization into just another trade union. So it is not surprising that the policies followed by the leading majority after January 27 have provoked so much discontent. Many organs at different levels of CC.OO. have pronounced themselves against the line being followed, against the tripartite document on social peace ("sosiego") or the refusal to participate in the Civic Platform (NGO initiative
January 1996 21
*Spain against unemployment). Similarly, it is not surprising that the critical sector has been able to open a wide ranging debate on trade union policy and on the organizational model, or that its proposals have obtained majority support in many pre-congress discussions, particularly in those assemblies with a large degree of rank and file participation.
This support will not be fully This support will not be tully reflected in the number of delegates at the Congress. The numerous irregularities in the selection process will favor the present majority. Thus, for example, there are many designated delegates, but none directly elected by the rank and file. Many preparatory assemblies are mere formalities. The outgoing leader-ship is both judge and participant in any dispute. In spite of all this, the strength of the critical sector at the Congress will be such that the present majority will not be able to ignore it. Furthermore, the critical sector stands behind a solid and coherent alternative which will have an impact far beyond the Congress.
Pluralism has always been a defining element of the CC.OO. Strong debates on trade union policy have taken place at all its congresses and in some, as in the Third Congress, as many as four separate lists have been presented for the Executive Commission. The result has been the election of pluralist and inclusive leaderships, as well as a united -because democratic - organization. One of the distinctive features of the CC.OO. is the notion that given the plural and diversified nature of the working class, pluralism and diversity are not only not obstacles but are, on the contrary, necessary values in the defense of the interests of that class. The same will surely happen at the Sixth Congress. Sharp as the precongress debate may have been, there is no risk of a split. As in the past, the result of the congress will be a stronger, more democratic and more combative CC.OO. * 22 International Viewpoint nº273