The class struggle inside the unions
In Spain, as in other European countries the structural reform which capitalism is carrying out has shown up the weakness and falseness of "the social democratic model". This does not mean that the bourgeoisie and imperialism have given up making use of it, since historical experience demonstrates that social democracy is an excellent tool of capital and that always - beyond the phraseology and rhetoric of the moment- these phony socialists are playing a game for capitalism. Today we are taking part in demonstrations of varying degrees of strength in the heart of the main union of the class in Spain, the Workers' Commissions (CC.OO), which are a product of the contradictions between the positions of the opportunists, social democrats and those who defend working class position. These contradictions came to public attention, openly, in the sixth congress of the CC.OO held last year.
It is necessary to take into account some essential elements, in order to understand this problem better.

Antecedents

With the death of the fascist dictator Franco in 1975 the unions were legalised. The popular organisations forged in the struggle against fascism during many years had an undeniable strength which caused fear not only to the forces of reaction but also to opportunist leaders of every sort, well-known ones including the renegade Santiago Carrillo and others who at that time were completely unknown, like Felipe Gonzales and his group. From that time on "there began a political pressure towards demobilisation: the institutionalisation of the parties was compensated for by a policy of agreements at the top continually creating a greater disassociation between exclusively political reform and any radical social demands" ("Las Relaciones Laborales en Espana", Carlos Prieto, Ed. Chapter XXI, page 404). That is to say the main union umbrella organisations, the CC.OO (dominated by the Communist Party), the UGT, (recently restructured by the social democrats), and the main political parties, have quietened down popular struggles, acting like fire-fighters in order to make possible the so-called peaceful transition from Francoism to the monarchy (decided by Franco himself). From 1977 until 1986 general agreements took place between the leaderships of the unions, of the bosses and of the government in turn.
The policy of social accord, apart from causing confusion, contributed to the demobilisation of the proletariat: trade union affiliations fell dramatically from 1978 to 1981, becoming the lowest in Europe. From 1986 onwards there began a slow recuperation (In some branches of industry (which were those with the greatest trade union membership), membership fell between 1978-1990 from 56.3 % to 35.6 %).
The arrival of the PSOE of Felipe Gonzalez in government in 1982 created euphoria and high expectations in many sectors of workers, who thought that with the "socialists" in government they were going to recover what have been lost and advance towards "a regime of prosperity and social justice". However, social democracy, from the first moment, accelerated processes of deindustrialisation, fragmentation and casualisation of the labour market, already began by preceding governments. The conduct of the Felipist resulted in an increasing rate of unemployment, increased casualisation and a gradual cutback in social expenditure, worsening considerably the standard of living and the working conditions of the popular masses.
The arrogance and aggressiveness of the PSOE in the application of its policies, barefacedly anti-popular and anti-worker, forced the trade union leadership (which as we have explained had already compromised itself in the process of demobilisation during the period of the "peaceful transition"), to confront the PSOE government demanding on behalf of the workers the paying back of what they called "the social debt" (1987), but evidently, without any fundamental criticism of the policies of capitalism which at that time was going through a transitory period of expansion.
This period coincided with a process of decline in particular political parties of the working class, and the unions became a refuge for active elements separated from the political parties. Thus, without defining themselves in this way, the unions began to play the role of the political focus of the popular classes, and to appear as a general front against the aggression of the social democratic government. The role of political glue carried out by the unions, is particularly characteristic of the UGT (General Workers Union), the union closely linked with the PSOE. From 1987 onwards the leadership of the UGT, with Nicolas Redondo at its head, separated itself openly from the leadership of the PSOE and took an active part in the organising of mobilisations which resulted in the level of labour disputes in Spain being the highest in Europe in the decade of the 1980s (As an example we can show that on 14 December 1988, the major unions of the CC.OO and the UGT called a one day general strike, with a nearly 100% backing).
However, at the beginning of the 1990s, there took place a move to the right in the unions which turned sharply towards a closer relationship with social democracy. Because of this, in both unions the most right wing elements became stronger in the leadership, taking advantage of weaknesses, failure of political vision and vacillations on the part of their historic leaders, Marcellino Camacho of the CC.OO and Nicolas Redondo of the UGT.
This open turn to the right of the trade union umbrella organisations coincided with the acceleration of the process of convergence in European capitalism, and also with the beginning of an economic crisis - still not overcome even today- which in Spain, given the dependant nature of its economy, has particularly serious consequences. The treaty of Maastricht to which the Spanish government adhered without going to the referendum which in its own constitution provided for and which various forces demanded, is the signal for the start of a ferocious generalised offensive by European capitalism against the social gains of the workers, an offensive which in our country is reaching unimaginable proportions.
Since 1992 successive reactionary measures have caused tremendous unemployment (double the rate of other countries in the European Union) and an unprecedented casualisation of labour. At the same time and with the support of parliament the employers have promoted the passing of labour legislation which gives them absolute sovereignty (In 1993 the government imposed by decree reforms relating to unemployment benefit, reducing it drastically. And in 1994 the same government (let us not forget, that of the "socialist" Felipe Gonzales) carried out an extreme reform of the reform of labour relations in favour of the employers. This reform was taken over by the reactionary and right wing Aznar and still is in place in the present year 1997). Simultaneously as the crisis of capitalism in Spain deepens the employers are tightening the knot around the trade unions. The Felippista's PSOE did not hesitate to use the dirtiest methods almost fascist methods in order to sack the general secretary of the UGT, Nicolas Redendo and the greater part of the leadership of that union. In their place they installed a leadership team which was much more docile and malleable, which did not hide its intention of returning to the social democratic fold. Having thus eliminated for the time being opposition from the UGT the attack was now centred on the workers' commissions (CC.OO), whose leadership passed through the hands of the treacherous and renegade PCE to right wing elements, headed by Antonio Gutierrez who did not hesitate in adopting every bourgeois principle and preaching to the proletariat about the necessity of reforms which would make the economy more and open "efficient and free". ...

The sixth congress of the CC.OO

The tensions of the congress already had a long history. Already in the fifth congress in 1992 a series of contradictions had arisen which, if they did not emerge fully in to the light of publicity, this was because many trade unionists and comrades fell into the mistake of confusing "unity" from above with the necessary clarification of internal positions.
At the opening of the sixth congress, Spain had a rate of unemployment of around 24 per cent (a rate which have not decreased in the last few years); the rate of casualisation was more than 37 per cent (since the labour reform of 1994, more than 90 per cent of contracts have been on a casual basis) and more than a million families are not in receipt of any salary. In the arena of the unions, while there has been growing a discrediting of the unions which more and more in every sense appear as bureaucratic structures assisting the employers, there has also been an abrupt reduction in industrial disputes, produced by fear of losing one's job and, above all by the rightward turn of the trade union leadership. And in the political arena, there has been an increase in measures tending to eliminate the precious social games won by the workers.
On the other hand, the general strike (January 1994) against the labour reform of the PSOE (socialist party) has thrown into relief clearly the opportunist character of the leadership of the CC.OO which capitulated without conditions when the situation was favourable to the increase of trade union pressure. Following this the general secretary of the workers' commissions, A. Gutierrez, confessed that this strike had taken place because of pressure from the base: "... the leadership of the UGT at the moment (at that time led by Nicolas Redondo) wanted to make from the mobilisation a symbolic revolt (totum revoltum) believing that this would increase pressure on the government. In relation to trade union unity we have to accept that, however it was intended, this was a tactical error. Thankfully this did not have more serious consequences, since we were not seeking conflict, rather the solution of conflicts." (Tribuna Publica, trade union journal of the CC.OO, December 1996).
The conditions existing in 1995 enabled the foreseeing of the trade union battle, but not its inevitability. The element which gained determining importance in the development of the trade union struggle was the political pressure from the bourgeoisie, which preoccupied with the necessity of meeting the convergence criteria of Maastricht and aware of the social tension which this was going to create, forced the right wing opportunists (already in place in the popular organisations) to act openly, without any disguise, and to put their cards on the table.
The social mask of the bourgeoisie was revealed and the "inevitable shock treatment" which was imposed on the proletariat and the popular masses, became a question of the State, these measures being defended as much by the ultra right wing and the liberals as by the right wing opportunists positioned in (and infiltrated in) a popular force such as Left Unity (Izquierda Unida).
The opportunist Nicolas Sartorius, a long standing member of the Political Bureau of the PCE, wrote in April 1996: "The grate policy of consensus and pacts is imposed with the principle aim of guaranteeing the success of business in an historic crisis: of arriving at the appointed time a single currency, the decisive nucleus of European unity. This is to say that ... this has been the axis of all the pacts and the government measures taken by Spain for at least the last two years ... In reaching this point it is necessary that everyone makes every effort, whether it is parties, unions or bosses ..."
In that situation an important sector of the trade union movement finally understood that passivity only serves opportunism. There then began the work of building a class based opposition movement within the CC.OO involving members of various forces of the left. The assemblies in preparation for the sixth congress were the scene throughout 1995 for the first serious clashes between the two union models: on the one hand, the "official" one defended by the opportunists who identified themselves with the basic principles of liberal ideology and tried to justify their participation in the social agreements attacking social benefits (In October 1996 the leaderships of the CC.OO and the UGT signed a pact with the government of Aznar to reduce the subsidy of pensions. At present they are negotiating new cuts in other areas of social expenditure), and on the other hand, that grouping known popularly as "the critical sector" which defends the trade unionism of the class and the recovery of that trade union model, participation on the political front together with other social and political organisations, and the need to maintain a more combative attitude that can strengthen the workers' movement in relation to the bourgeois offensive.
In the sixth congress the critical sector, in spite of the many tricks and manoeuvres of the bureaucratic apparatus managed to win the support of 36 per cent of the delegates and to elect seven members to the confederal executive of the union. In the last regional and branch meetings the critical sector maintained its representation in some areas increasing this and in other cases winning the majority (This is the case in such important Territorial Unions in regions as important as Asturias and Sevilla).
The provocative and aggressive attitude of the "official" leadership which is trying by every means to prevent the development of the "critical" sector is a reflection of the damage which has been caused to the bourgeoisie in the political arena by this fight taking place inside the CC.OO. The "official" sector has been seized with real fear, even hysteria, which is understandable since this very year the government of Aznar has announced new and serious measures against the popular interest, which will place the opportunist leaders in a difficult situation, because they will be forced to defend the capitalist's plans and therefore to confront a very important sector of the union.

Some conclusions

In October 1994, we wrote in this journal: "Once again experience teaches us that the struggle of our class, even for the most immediate demands, is essentially political..."
In effect beyond the strictly union focus of the division in the congress, "there have appeared, with the weaknesses and various levels of the present development, distinct ideological currents which compete for the control of the union... the contest has defined itself essentially as one between the recalcitrant right wing which controls the leadership and the very important current which, although not sufficiently structured, basically brings together the various tendencies ready to work in a united way to open up for the left its own political arena independent of the right wing social democracy, which position, in this congress, is going further in its organic control of the CC.OO." (Octubre, No:30, February 1996)
"The struggle in the heart of the unions (particularly in the CC.OO) has preceded an internal struggle in the political organisations of the left: However, it will be the resolution of these contradictions which are now appearing openly inside these latter organisations, which will decisively influence the development of the trade union struggle.
"It is now not a matter of laying out revolutionary programmes, but of creating the conditions which will favour the development of proletarian consciousness, through the struggle inside the unions, working shoulder to shoulder with the active militants who - without agreeing fully with all our revolutionary proposals - are nevertheless ready to struggle for the defence and recovery of class based trade unionism."
Alongside this correct position there have also risen anarchist minority positions. In no. 22 of our journal Octubre we wrote:
"We are present at a period of growing frustration on the part of many comrades who feel impotent in the face of the bureaucratisation of the trade unions. This frustration acts as a breathing ground for the resurgence of anarchist tendencies in the heart of the workers movement. In the face of the "umbrella" syndicalism of the CC.OO and the UGT some collectives have been formed which demand a more participative model ... However, in addition to their isolated character, these currents have an economist vision without a political perspective, when they are not openly in opposition to every politicisation of union activity."
And this is why these minority positions can be particularly dangerous and act as a brake on the development of class positions. In place of organising a united response of the proletariat, there are sawing more division and fragmentation. Moreover, these people affirm, against all the evidence, a separation between political causes (which are behind the reversal of popular conquests) on the one hand, and on the other, their social consequences.
As communists we correctly understand that the solution of the present problems of the workers demands that we prepare the conditions for a qualitative leap, and that for this leap it is necessary to stop the bourgeoisie from breaking any class alliances, however small these may be, among the working people. It is certain that political debate will take place only within social democratic boundaries, to the degree that generally, within the trade unions, revolutionary positions remain as minority tendencies. That is to say the debate will not put into question the capitalist system itself but only the most blatant aspects of its policies.
We must concern ourselves then with seeing how, while the bourgeoisie closes ranks, unites itself and works in a coordinated way, in the popular arena we continue with disorientation and ideological and political and organisational division. We are fighting against this, since this situation not only hinders the advance of the proletariat, but also contributes to isolate the communists, an aim which unites the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie with those sections of the social democracy disguising themselves as "left wing".
In November 1994 (once again we will quote from our journal), we reflected on the struggle in the heart of the CC.OO. This reflection served to push forward internal debate in our organisation, a debate which ended with important results. Here we quote some paragraphs:
"Many people will consider that this confrontation between various currents of social democracy does not concern us, that to arrive at agreements with any of the parties involved would be to renounce in advance the revolutionary positions in the heart of the workers' movement where, as we are all agreed, social democracy is now in crisis. But those who think this way are forgetting that the work of social democracy has been to cause not only physical and political dispersion but also the frustration of many of its active members; they forget that de-politicisation is a sad reality of the union outlook at the moment, a reality which if we reject political debate with social democracy will worsen. They forget that it is social democracy which today leads the unions, that it is its demands which are put forward by its affiliated bodies, just as the struggle between its various currents affects in a very important manner, trade union activity.
Whoever wishes to be the leader of the workers' movement has the obligation of knowing what are the various forces within the unions, of being sensitive to the new political elements who are continually coming forward, in order to adapt one's tactics with the objective of advancing the revolutionary positions which are still very weak ... The crisis of social democracy is provoking a debate which is not only trade unionist but also political and ideological, and which can help to break the stifling (suffocating) monotony in which the unions are enclosed, and which is no more than a reflection of the political struggle between the reformist left (not the revolutionary left) and the right wing social democracy.
Obviously we have our own position. As communists we struggle to end the capitalist system and we are conscious that only by recovering the revolutionary character of the proletarian struggle can we advance towards our objective. We know that every effort to make capitalism and the popular interest compatible will come to grief inevitably in the face of reality, and that is why the contradictions which are emerging among the various social democratic currents are evidence of its impotence when the time comes to take a position at that moment when capitalism does not have to make concessions to the workers' movement and when what is necessary is revolutionary action and leadership.
In this battle we must be the first to intervene to demand openness, putting forward our positions and reaching agreements where possible, with other forces and comrades who agree with us, at least concerning the necessity of democratising, empowering and politicising trade union action."
Through the development and the results of the sixth congress of the CC.OO nothing will be the same again. The struggle will grow, it will become very difficult, but the workers already have the beginning of a trade union alliance of their own which can bring together the most combative and active sectors of the union. A class alliance which can act as a barrier against the rightist social democracy. All this is in itself, if we know how to work, a guarantee of successful struggles to come.