The promised land

Dear Friends,

I wish to say a few things in reply to what Greg Dropkin and Kevin Brandstatter have said about the Liverpool docks' dispute and the ITF etc.

First of all, I should make it clear that I think it is utterly pointless for Greg Dropkin and I to engage in a yes he did and no I did not slinging match. I will leave it to others to form their own judgements, but I would like to underline that I have been entirely truthful in everything I have written to this mailing list and it is unreasonable, unfair and untrue to state otherwise. But in the end it may boil down to a question of who you prefer to believe. I consider this to be a pointless exercise. The only thing I am pleased by is that Greg admits I have been friendly in replying and commenting on this issue. I would urge others to also maintain some level of politeness. We are after all, I thought, brothers and sisters, not mortal enemies.

In fact, those on the Right do not believe that the ITF or any of its officers should bother replying to outrageous slanders since we all have better things to do. I disagree because I think that the workers' movement and those concerned with it should debate and discuss things. Without going into detailed criticism of Greg Dropkin's last message, I would like to point out that the chronology he presents is wrong and that it is incorrect to imply that the ITF is not supporting the Liverpool dockers. Greg Dropkin alleges that ITF Dockers' Secretary Kees Marges ordered one of our inspectors not to go to an international conference. This is clearly a ridiculous statement since Kees has no managerial authority over ITF inspectors. The General Secretary or the Assistant General Secretary responsible for seafarers could issue an instruction to an inspector, but Kees Marges cannot.

Without replying in detail to Greg's inaccurate points, I would like to put my own cards on the table. It appears to me that there are a body of people in the world who are intent on proving a point about international organisations like the ITF that is based upon their own prejudice and prior assumptions. I think we must denounce this kind of politics as naive and politically counter-productive. As I said in my previous message, all generalisations are false and it is just not true to portray all rank and file workers are revolutionary heroes and all trade union officers as right-wing bureaucrats. Any analysis founded on these principles should be denounced and disregarded.

I do not want to convince everyone that the ITF is the greatest organisation in the world and I am quite prepared to accept valid criticism of many aspects of our behaviour. However, such criticism should be based on fact, not prejudice. Furthermore I believe that there is a valid and serious discussion that needs to be held about effective practical tasks of developing global solidarity. Such a discussion should neither be based on slogans nor silly apriori assumptions. The ITF is a democratic organisation that operates genuinely in a democratic fashion. This means that like most trade unions if you don't like what the leadership are doing, you can depose them and elect new leaders. You can even develop direct mandates that enforce certain behaviour on union leaders. This is the essence of what I believe in. I do not think that people who disagree with their union should go off and form another one. If we look at the world today, I believe we can say without hesitation that the stronger trade union movements are the united ones and that trade unions that have splintered into Christian, Socialist, Communist or even Peronist factions have all ended up weaker. (Now that is something people might usefully debate).

A couple of points in reply to what Kevin Brandstatter says. He states that the origin of many trade union bodies lie in the cold war with the CIA being responsible for a number of international trade union bodies. Not that old chestnut again! This is just not true of the International Trade Secretariats like the ITF. The ITF was founded 100 years ago in 1896 in support of the Rotterdam dockers' strike. We were formerly constituted at a fringe meeting during the First International conference. The CIA was not even founded until the Second World War. It is probably true to cite CIA and KGB influence in the establishment of both the WFTU and ICFTU in the post-world war two era. But for anyone to accuse the ITF of being "tainted" in this way is wrong and intellectually naive. I would refer interested people to the academic work that has been done by Doctor Sigrid Koch-Baumgarten (Free University of Berlin) and Doctor Bob Reinalda (University of Nijmegen). The ITF not only clearly predates the OSS/CIA, but we can also be extremely proud of the diligent anti-fascist work we performed in the 20s and 30s.

Finally, Braunstatter writes

>"I am sure however that once workers start to plan for such eventualities
>organisations such as the ITF will do their level best to sabotage any
>developments"

This is just completely utterly untrue. We need only look at the extremely successful ITF campaign against Flag of convenience shipping which involves highly effective transnational workers' organisations and regular global industrial action as proof of the fact that the ITF positively encourages international solidarity between transport workers.

Our General Secretary between the wars, Edo Fimmen in his remarkable book "Labour's Alternative" argued that international trade union organisations would eventually replace national organisations in the same way as national bodies replaced local ones. This clear statement of belief and intent may not have come true as quickly as Fimmen believed, but the ITF still believes that it will eventually be the case.

P.S.: A lot of people have been saying that Edo Fimmen's book should be reprinted. It was originally printed in 1924 and we have a copy, so does Warwick and a few other places. But I do think the book deserves to be reprinted. It's full title is 'Labour's Alternative: the United States of Europe or Europe Limited'. In fact, Pluto Press have agreed to a reprint and Labour historian Walter Kendall is producing a new foreword. I hope this book will be available later this year.