03) NUP: A STEP FORWARD OR JUST ANOTHER MERGER?
By Sam Hammond
If contradiction, whether antagonistic or not, is the propellant of motion, then the velocity of the New Union Project is certainly understandable. The dominant contradiction is objective and has a history: the history of Canadian labour and the class struggle that sets the backdrop for the phenomenon of The New Union Project. The irreconcilable interests of labour and capital define this contradiction.
The contradictions and debates within labour, no matter how sharp, can be viewed as non‑antagonistic, even creative, except where capital (ideological, physical or both) fifth‑columns itself into the Labour movement as it has from Cold War McCarthyism to the present. Objectively speaking, the penetration of the neo‑liberal agenda by recognizable degrees ‑ acceptance, apathy, or even outright advocacy ‑ are all symptoms of corporate ideological intrusion.
The other side of the contradiction is the history of courageous and real struggles, waged by the people over generations, to win the social programs that we are trying to defend. Unity and renewal requires an independent working class program with an historical objective, and a departure from acquiescence, collaboration and defeatism. Any move forward must be propelled by resistance to the corporate agenda. Failure to do so means loss and retreat; there is no neutral gear in this vehicle.
This is what makes the New Union Project of such vital importance. The NUP moved through its second stage in October, with the unanimous support of the CEP Convention in Quebec City. The excitement and hope generated within the labour movement, and particularly amongst progressive activists, received another boost as the groundwork for the founding convention of the new union was confirmed. It is a fact now, it will happen.
Whatever contradictions exist now, resolved or not, will determine whether the dream of renewal and fightback becomes reality, or wakes up to another larger version of the same‑old same‑old. Another merger, with more members and not much else, would be a tragedy, because within the vision of the organizing committee lies a new level of development and a new direction for Canadian labour, enthusiastically supported across the working class and watched warily by the corporate opposition.
The founding of the CAW in 1985 was carried out in an environment of militant rejection of concessionary bargaining, refusal to bow to the Detroit Three, and the determination by Canadian autoworkers to be masters in their own house. The birth of CEP had its own characteristics, but it emerged and grew because it had the militancy and strength to provide a home for smaller unions (as did the CAW) who had to reorganize because of changing technology and demographics. Both unions added new chapters to Canadian labour and generally strengthened the working class. These are the traditions needed now in a new and more aggressive form. They must be elevated and built upon.
But over the years, in a chain of bitter decisions and skirmishes, within the two unions and between them, there have also been processes and trends that threaten the proposed renewal. The threat is like a serpent with two heads sharing a common body.
Within the two unions, under tremendous legal and economic corporate/government pressure, concessionary bargaining that started as a rearguard action developed into negotiating tactics that will be hard to reverse, especially with the auto makers. The acceptance of two‑tiered wages, pensions, etc. is absolutely incompatible with the stated goals of the New Union Project, but took place concurrently as the CAW leadership adroitly came to the crossroads and went both ways. In CEP, the paper industry has pried concessions from the union on a different scale, but they are there as well.
The Strategic Vision Document adopted at the October CEP Convention contains within it the other serpent's head, which put the two unions at loggerheads during the Days of Action against the Harris Tories in 1997. CEP was one of the larger "Pink Paper" unions that advocated withdrawing from extra‑parliamentary struggle, abandoning social justice partners and contracting out political struggle exclusively to the NDP. The Strategic Vision document calls for unqualified support for the NDP, and political campaigning to elect first NDP federal government in history.
Without qualification or programmatic guarantees, this means agreement with the NDP's acceptance of Harper's military budget, the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya, future support for attacks on Syria, support for Israeli occupation of Palestine, no real fight against free trade, and probably acceptance of CETA. The list is longer. This is not an attack ‑ it is an observation of the NDP's performance.
The acceptance of the neo‑liberal agenda by social democracy globally, and its role as implementers in many countries, is also reflected in the NDP agenda in Canada. This role is in direct contradiction to the program and ideology in the New Union Project, and to most of the Strategic Vision Document. Social democracy's historic position is to accept capital, to support the unattainable reform of capitalism, as an alternative to the struggle for real working class and people's power. If this ideology is not rejected, it will ultimately destroy renewal, just as it has led to the present environment of defeat.
The most creative and productive way forward is through the debates over how to build appropriate democratic structures, and over inclusion of the unemployed, Aboriginal peoples, racialized communities, LGBT and social justice activists, environmentalists, peace groups, the women's movement. In the resolution of these structural and program items is the birth of something new and needed. It is difficult to see anything antagonistic or non‑productive in such debates.
But the debate over unqualified support for the NDP contains within it the relationship to capitalism itself. The historic resistance of the NDP to coalitions and united front movements is one of sectarianism and class propriety. It will not allow these formations to develop without interference and control.
The two‑headed monster of concessionary acquiescence and politics contracted out to social democracy is a threat to the New Union Project. On the other hand, extra‑parliamentary movements, militant action, inclusive coalition partnering, and an adversarial labour movement will force Parliament and parliamentary parties to adopt the agenda of the masses or disappear. The broadest possible involvement and the most inclusive social forces can make the dreams of millions into reality.