FOR
UNIFICATION
WORKERS COMMISSIONS
SPAIN OF THE by CARMEN AYESTERAN
The following article appeared first in issue No. 64 of
Zutik, the organ of the ETA-VI (Euzkadi ta Askatasuna-
VI - Basque Nation and Freedom, Sixth Congress), and later in the June 1974 issue of Combate, central organ of the LCR-ETA-VI (Liga Comunista Revolucionaria-E TA-
VI -- Revolutionary Communist League-ETA-VI), sympathizing organization of the Fourth International in the territory of the Spanish state. It deals with a problem of great currency in several European capitalist countries:
the necessity for trade-union unification and its connec tion with the struggle for workers democracy, in particular with the right of tendencies to function within the trade-union movement.
To be sure, the workers commissions that have emerged in Spain during the past decade are not trade-union organizations in the strict sense of the term. They grew up within the factories under the impetus of the most combative militants (who tended to constitute their membership) as an expression of the rejection by a considerable part of the working class of the vertical state-controlled
"unions. " These bodies are not legal, and thus, by the On several occasions we have spoken of the role played in the development of the revolution in our country by the workers commissions, unitary bodies encompassing the advanced workers. The preparation for the revolutionary general strike whose task it will be to overthrow the dictatorship means above all preparation of conditions that will allow for the generalization throughout the Spanish state of local explosions like the ones that occurred in Ferrol, Vigo, and Pamplona. Because of the nature of the workers commissions as unitary bodies, they represent the framework best suited to making such a generalization possible. Furthermore, the daily experience of struggle shows that in spite of strong spontaneous rank-and-file tendencies favorable to unification, many struggles still remain isolated because of the lack of coordination among the various workers commissions. This has been the cause of many defeats. And, conversely, in cases in which coordination of the various workers commissions has been realized on a united platform (as in the metalworkers struggle in Pamplona), even if in a strictly conjunctural manner and on the scale of a single zone or region, the workers have been able to force the employers to yield and have won significant improvements. This phenomenon is especially notable in the province of Guipuzcoa, which for several years has been in the forefront of the battle. In spite of constant rank-and-file pressure for unification, the division among the various coordinating committees has persisted, often on a sectarian basis, each committee being axised around this or that current in the workers movement. In response to the rank-and-file desire for unification, various organizations, ours among them, have taken the force of circumstances, they do not encompass the masses of workers during "calm" periods. But experience has shown that when periods of agitation open up, when struggles are being prepared and organized, the masses rally around the workers commissions, tending to broaden these bodies into strike committees democratically elected during general assemblies. In this sense, unification of the workers commissions in the Spanish state is just as indispensible for preparation and effective conduct of workers struggles against the employers as is unification of the trade unions in countries in which the trade-union movement is legal and has a massive number of permanent adherents. From this point of view, the struggle of our comrades in the Basque country for the unification of the workers commissions with a concomitant right of tendencies is exemplary. Successes achieved in this struggle would be important not only for the other regions of the Spanish state, but for all of capitalist Europe as well.
INPRECOR necessary initiatives to overcome the existing divisions. In view of the lessons that can be drawn from this experience for other Spanish regions where the problem is posed with similar urgency, we are here summing up the analysis made of the Guipuzcoa situation by our Euzkadi (Basque) comrades. 1. The "list" of workers commissions and workers committees in the province of Guipuzcoa. There are three coordinating committees that claim to be "province-wide": the "Workers Commissions of Guipuzcoa Workers, "the "Biltzar Workers Commissions, " and the "Workers Committees." The first is based on the influence of the Maoist MCE (Movimiento Comunista de España -- Communist Movement of Spain) and, to a much lesser extent, of the ORT (Organización Revolucionario de los Trabajadores -- Revolutionary Workers Organization, a socialist tendency of Christian origin.) This is the body with the greatest implantation in the zone that extends from San Sebastian to Irun (that is, the zone of heavy industrial concentration in Guipuzcoa province). The second is under the hegemony of the Spanish Communist party; it coordinates several workers commissions in various zones, but is numerically weak and has a weak implantation. The third is influenced by sectors of various ex-ETA minorities and the Communist Workers Nuclei. Its influence extends from the zone running from San Sebastian to Irun and to the AndeainHernani-Lasarte triangle. On the margins of these three "coordinating committees"
9
SPAIN there are a series of coordinating committees that function in more limited zones; they do not coordinate among each other, nor do they coordinate with the three "federations" mentioned above. Nevertheless, these "zonal coordinating bodies" are all unitary and are supported by all the workers organizations of each zone, with the exception of the Communist party, which maintains its own separate "workers commissions" in a sectarian manner. Finally, there are coordinating committees that are composed of mixtures of elements belonging to the "Workers Committees" and others that do not belong to any committee. These exist in the Andeain-Hernani-Lasarte zone and in Irun. It must be added that all these committees, commissions, and coordinating bodies function in the smallest province of the Spanish state. This gives an idea of the reasons why the very militant workers movement and the rather broad vanguard that exist in Guipuzcoa have been unable to find an adequate framework for unifying their struggles. 2. 2. First steps toward unification of the workers commissions. Last winter's struggle around the new contracts incontestably posed the necessity of breaking down the prevailing division. Innumerable struggles broke out practically on the same day; often they raised virtually identical demands. But the repression came down brutally (more than 200 workers fired, many arrested), because none of the existing organizations were able to centralize all the partial struggles into a powerful united movement against the employers and the dictatorship. Paradoxically, the road to unity was first opened by a split (although not, properly speaking, a total rupture) in the Guipuzcoa Workers group between a majority faction led by the MCE and a minority faction led by the ORT. In spite of the evidence of the facts, which cried out for a contrary conclusion, the majority faction maintained its sectarian intransigent position that the unification of the workers commissions could take place only if all the other groups entered the coordinating commission of the Guipuzcoa Workers. This position was graphically described in the journal published by this commission in December 1973: "We call upon the 'Biltzar' comrades wherever they may be, who are voluntarily staying on the fringes of the workers commissions of Guipuzcoa, to abandon their anti-unitary attitude and reincorporate themselves into the struggle to endow our class with solid workers commissions. " In other words, the only real workers commissions in Guipuzcoa are ours; all those who refuse to enter our commissions are opponents of the unity of the working class. Without abandoning the Guipuzcoa Workers coordinating commission, the ORT sector took the initiative of opening discussions with several other bodies and with organizations upholding the necessity for a complete unification of the workers commissions in the province. ORT and the LCR-ETA-VI then held an initial meeting and decided to pool their efforts to unify the workers commissions. This initiative was later supported by a sector of the "ex-ETA minorities, " the so-called
Leninist faction, and by the LC. A first appeal was issued to all workers commissions and workers committees to meet together to broach the discussion.
The zonal unitary workers commissions declared themselves ready to launch the process of unification immediately. The workers commissions of the Biltzar coordinating committee
(which are the least numerous and command the smallest
10 forces) affirmed that "none of the organizations present here •is representative of the workers movement" and decided to withdraw on that basis. As for the Workers Committees, they appeared to be undecided. In practice, one of their subfactions (the ex-ETA minority) approved the unification, while another sector (the one controlled by the NOC, Communist Workers Nuclei) rejected it. During this first meeting the MCE faction of the Guipuzcoa Workers commission clung in a sectarian manner to its earlier position. In the course of later meetings, certain initial differences began to become clearer. But the very fact that no agreement was reached for a unitary preparation of Aberri Eguna (the Basque national holiday -- INPRECOR) or for May Day reflects the difficulties and reticences that continue to exist along the rrad to unification of the workers commissions.
3. 3. A central problem. In fact, there is a real and objective basis for these difficulties. That is that Guipuzcoa Workers, Biltzar, and the Workers Committees represent three distinct tendencies in the workers movement, just as the forces that the LCR-ETA-VI includes or influences represent another real tendency in the workers movement. But this fact should not prevent immediate unification of the workers commissions. Each of the tendencies may think that it is the only "really revolutionary tendency" and that all the others are "revisionists, " "spontanéists, " "syndicalists, " or "ultraleftists. " All this is normal. It should lead to a healthy ideological struggle among all the tendencies in the workers movement. But precisely because it is a question of real tendencies within the workers movement, the ideological struggle must not prevent unity in action, nor should it prevent unification of the workers commissions. The only way to reach that goal is to avoid forcing any of these tendencies to disappear by issuing "decrees. " The tendencies must have the right to structure and express themselves as tendencies within united workers commissions. organizing tendencies must be institutionalized within the That is, the democratic right of workers commissions.
The problem is clear. These tendencies exist, whether we like it or not. Today they are separated from each other into distinct workers commissions and workers committees. We propose that their existence be recognized, but in the framework of a single and unique network of united workers commissions.
The right of election and recall (from the bottom up) of all bodies and "coordinating" structures of the workers commissions is absolutely indispensable. But that is not enough. The workers commissions would still not be really democratic bodies as long as minority tendencies of the movement were denied the possibility of expressing themselves.
Fundamentally, the right of tendencies to function means three things. First, the tendencies must be able to structure themselves as such and maintain contacts, hold regular meetings, etc., among their members. Second, they must have the right to criticize majority decisions before, during, and after struggles, campaigns, and so on. Third, they must have access to public organs (journals, etc.) of the workers commissions so as to be able to express their points of view within the commissions as minority tendencies. As a final point let us add that the official line of the workers commissions should be the one determined by the majority after a democratic confrontation within the workers commissions. Consequently, the public expression of the minority should preserve a dual
character as that of a minority as such and as a part of the workers commissions. 4. 4. The lack of logic in the positions of Guipuzcoa Workers, Biltzar, and Workers Committees. As the unitary meetings began to take place, the MCE faction of Guipuzcoa Workers changed its position in view of the fact that the majority of participants were firmly resolved to set the process of unification in motion even if this important force that concerns a decisive sector of the organized workers movement would not go along. While this faction continued to oscillate between the Yes and No positions, nevertheless in the end it appeared to be rallying to the unification project. But at that moment the fight around "tendencies" came up. At first, the MCE faction of Guipuzcoa Workers refused to recognize the right of tendencies to be built (probably in the firm conviction that the MCE would in any case constifute the majority faction of the unified workers commissions in Guipuzcoa). In the end, it agreed to recognize this right on the condition that the majority of the workers commissions on the factory level agreed to that decision. The MCE faction described its position this way: "All opportunities must be utilized to demonstrate that there is no ideological and political unity in the general movement of workers commissions, that there are various political lines struggling against one another." "The bulletins put out by our militants and our allies... should explain that the workers commissions today are divided among different tendencies. " "The comrades who find themselves at the heads of various bodies should not seek to stay there by themselves; they should act in a radically different manner. They should make sure that all the currents that have some influence in the base commissions are represented in the leadership. " "How can the various commissions be differentiated, how can we strengthen the camp of those that do not accept the policy of Mr. Carrillo (the head of the Communist party -- INPRECOR)? In the first place by lending a more pronounced tendency character to our work." These quotations have been taken from various issues of Servir el Pueblo, the organ of the leadership of the MCE; the last quotation comes from the issue of December 1973. It is therefore in order to ask the MCE why it persists in denying to other currents the same tendency rights that it claims for itself! But these comrades add that even if the right of tendencies were accepted, the tendencies should have to express themselves not through the organs and journals of the workers commissions but outside of these publications, not as tendencies within the workers commissions, but in other forms. A recent publication of the Luzuriaga commission of Guipuzcoa Workers summed up this position as follows: "The minority -- which does not necessarily hold a wrong position just because it is a minority -- could assert its independence and express its positions with all the means at its disposal (leaflets, bulletins, assemblies, etc.), but always in a manner outside the factory commission; for example, in the name of the 'workers of the factory, ' etc." This is completely illogical. How do these comrades think it would be possible to demonstrate to the workers that there is
Spanish workers in illegal strike. but one united workers commission if a publication of the workers commission and another publication in the name of the "workers of the factory" simultaneously appear? How can they affirm that there is a right of tendencies and simultaneously deny the tendencies the right to express themselves as such? And when they themselves pose the necessity of forming a "bloc" or "tendency, " do they project expressing their views as the "workers of the factory" and not as a tendency within the workers commission? We think we have the right to ask these worker comrades and the leaders of the MCE to demonstrate a minimum of reflection and consistency in their ideas, to ask them to set aside this sort of maneuver, which is contrary to the traditions of workers democracy, when they present their positions to us; that is, if they are really prepared to travel the road that leads to the unification of the workers commissions of Guipuzcoa. Unfortunately, not much can be said about the Biltzar coordinating committee. The Spanish CP is once again reiterating its sectarian and antiunitary positions by imposing the force of its apparatus on the militants and sympathizers that it controls. In spite of the proposal we made both to the leadership and to the rank and file of the CP and all the workers commissions, Biltzar continues to function separately. At this moment a large step toward the unity of the workers movement in Guipzcoa is being taken. We are committed to defending with all available means the right of the Biltzar comrades to express and defend what is now their political line publicly and as such within the future unified workers commissions. We are committed to defending the right of the Biltzar comrades to structure themselves as a tendency in the unified workers commissions. The fact that we are in total disagreement with this political line is not and will not be an obstacle to our defending this elementary democratic right. But beginning from that position, we believe that it would be a crime against the interests and unity of the workers movement if these comrades were to maintain the sectarian attitude they have held until now. We have already indicated that the positions taken by the Workers Committees during the meetings that have gone on have been relatively indecisive and contradictory. This is due to the specific character of these "committees. " In reality, they are not open and unitary bodies like the workers
11
SPAIN commissions. In a certain sense, they are a mixture of political organizations and workers commissions. In fact, more than any other bodies that have grown up within the factories, they represent a particular tendency within the workers movement: that of revolutionary syndicalism, structured as such but separated from the rest of the organized workers movement. This separation gives the Workers Committees their hybrid character as a cross between political organizations and workers commissions. On the part of one of the leading factions within these "com-
"that of the ex-ETA minority, the maintenance of mittees, this contradictory situation is the result of the past, of the manner in which these "committees" were born, and of the survival of syndicalist deviations that marked this organization at the time of its split from the ETA-VI in 1972. But on the part of another faction within these committees, that of the NOC, it is a matter of a position that has been worked out in theory. This faction upholds the thesis that no unity is possible with the reformists and that the unity of the working class can be realized only when the majority of the class has come to revolutionary positions. Such an attitude appears to us as fundamentally sectarian. On the one hand, it is incontestable that on a historic scale the overthrow of the bourgeois state requires the united action of the broadest masses of workers; this unity must be prepared in advance by the unity of the proletarian front, despite the inevitable division among various workers parties. But on the other hand, on a very concrete level, differences with the reformist organizations should not prevent us from fighting side by side in the day-to-day struggle with the militants of these organizations. When all is said and done, the only way these militants will be led to break with their treacherous leadership is for them to come to the conviction that the position upheld by revolutionaries is better than that upheld by their own leaders; and this they can do through the experience of a united and common battle waged alongside the revolutionaries.
5. Our proposal. The first task is to bring about a discussion among the whole vanguard, and especially among the militants of the workers commissions and workers committees themselves, of all the problems that came up during the unitary meetings.
12
Beginning from there, the process of unification of the workers commissions must be set in motion immediately: There should be democratic elections within each commission for local "coordinating" bodies, and, after that beginning, the same should be done for zonal coordinating bodies and then even for coordinating bodies on a provincial scale. The support of the Biltzar workers commissions and of all the "Workers Committees" must be won if this unification is to be fully effective. We call upon all political organizations and all "coordinating bodies" and workers commissions that already support the unification project to launch a public and internal campaign with the aim of obtaining the adherence of those various workers currents. Effective unity must entail real and true democracy within the workers commissions, and this should include the right to form tendencies. We insist that a minority current in the workers movement cannot accept its dissolution as a tendency. Still less can a majority current impose that dissolution. If the majority of tendencies and "coordinating" bodies that today accept the unification of the workers commissions were to reject this elementary democratic right, we would in any case accept immediate unification. But we would do this while criticizing and politically denouncing such bureaucratic maneuvers. We would do it conscious of the fact that this unification would be built on sand and would threaten to collapse at the first conflict provoked within the unified workers commissions by the unfolding class struggle; that is, conscious of the fact that unity would still not be consolidated. We would do it while taking care not to criticize those who despite their desire for unity would be disinclined to accept their disappearance as organized currents or the annulment of minimal democratic guarantees, the dissolution of the network of independent commissions. which would amount to
But we insist that we would accept the unification in any case, for we are convinced that beyond the bureaucratic attitudes of this or that sector, a step forward toward the possibility of providing a united framework for workers struggles would be positive. In the end, it will be the struggle itself that will pose for a vanguard much broader than the one we have been able to reach today the necessity for democracy within the workers commissions and the necessity of breaking with the bureaucratic attitudes that make the progress of the workers movement and the struggle extremely difficult.
GERMANY THE ENI OF